American Politics

[MarquisdeSade1]

Night after night, the host of the most watched show in prime-time cable news uses a simple narrative to instill fear in his viewers: "They" want to control and then destroy "you. ".

A New York Times analysis of 1,150 episodes reveals how Tucker Carlson pushes extremist ideas and conspiracy theories into millions of households, five nights a week. He's done so since the beginning, but the show has gotten darker. Carlson, 52, has one of the largest megaphones in all of cable television. When President Donald Trump left office, Carlson filled the void on the right. Here's how the show works.

When you enter Carlson's world each night, you are among his 3 million-plus viewers and part of a Fox News audience that is 92% white and overwhelmingly older, according to Nielsen data. They are the "ruling class. " They threaten everything you believe in.

The New York Times' Pathetic Hit Job on Tucker Carlson Fails Miserably.

Accuracy isn't the point at America's benighted "newspaper of record."

By Carpe Diem.

May 2, 2022.

Last weekend, New York Times "political and investigative reporter" Nicholas Confessore disgorged more than 15,000 words in an effort to smear and vilify Fox News host Tucker Carlson and his viewers. Confessore's real goal, obviously, was to terrify Carlson's advertisers to withdraw from the highest-rated cable TV talk show in America. Carlson, Confessore and the Times want readers to think, is nothing more than a televangelist for "white nationalists."

Confessore offers not just one but three absurdly long and profoundly idiotic pieces to his Carlson hit job. The first story will suffice to get the flavor. That's where Confessore uses the word "racist" no fewer than 10 times to describe Carlson as a bigot who intentionally stokes "white resentment" for his more than 3 million viewers who are also supposedly "racist," and probably smelly, and poorly educated, too.

This is the same newspaper that covered up the Holocaust, ignored Joseph Stalin's manufactured famine that killed anywhere from 7-13 million people between 1932 and 1933 in Ukraine, and relentlessly smeared Ronald Reagan.

This is the same newspaper that accused Sarah Palin of being culpable for the 2011 shooting of USA Representative Gabby Giffords in Tucson, the same newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize after spending two years falsely accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent, and the same newspaper that ignores and covers up Joe Biden's family corruption, mental and physical incapacitation, and destruction of our country as he opens our border to millions of illegal aliens, undermines the energy industry, and blows up our economy with disastrous inflationary spending.

Still, wretched track record and all, the attacks against Carlson were vicious and completely unwarranted.

According to the Princeton-educated and Pulitzer Prize-winning Confessore, Carlson, "has constructed what may be the most racist show in the history of cable news—and also, by some measures, the most successful. ".

Evidently, when someone who isn't a left-winger happens to be successful and has a large following, it must be because that person is a white supremacist.

Along with "racist," Confessore uses the phase "white nationalist" no fewer than 10 times in the first piece and suggests that Carlson "has adopted the rhetorical tropes and exotic fixations of white nationalists, who have watched gleefully from the fringes of public life as he popularizes their ideas. ".

In other words, millions of people don't tune in to Carlson's program because he's handsome, intelligent, hilarious, refuses to talk down to his audience, and has the courage to speak about issues other conservatives won't touch. Oh no, it's as simple as "racism sells. " Carlson is the white supremacist version of Ibram X. Kendi.

But Confessore wasn't finished with his brilliant analysis. (With all of those words, how could he be?) Carlson's show, he writes.

Teaches loathing and fear. Night after night, hour by hour, Mr. Carlson warns his viewers that they inhabit a civilization under siege—by violent Black Lives Matter protesters in American cities, by diseased migrants from south of the border, by refugees importing alien cultures, and by tech companies and cultural elites who will silence them, or label them racist, if they complain. . . Amid nationwide outrage over George Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Mr. Carlson dismissed those protesting the killing as 'criminal mobs. '.

So according to Confessore's crack investigatory work, all of those things he listed are just imagery grievances. There is no reason for Americans to deplore the 2020 BLM riots that left 2,000 police officers blinded or injured, more than two dozen people dead, and property damage that reached $2 billion—the most expensive in insurance history. It defies all reason that black business owners wouldn't invite "fiery but mostly peaceful" protesters to incinerate their life's work and investment. Of course they would want to defund the police! Justice demands it!

The crisis at the southern USA Border must be a figment of Carlson's imagination. Have hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from more than 100 countries poured across the border every month since Joe Biden took office? Well, sure. But let's pay no mind to the debate currently roiling the Democratic Party about the wisdom of ending Title 42, the COVID-era legislation that lets border officials immediately deport illegal aliens for health reasons. The old economic argument against unfettered immigration—an argument that certain Democrats embraced as recently as 2015—is simply "racism" now. There's no longer any reason for white, blue-collar workers to worry about illegal labor depressing wages and straining public welfare systems. And, of course, illegal aliens never, ever break the law.

At this point, you're probably wondering where Confessore's evidence is that Carlson is a racist. Well here it is: "Among the most frequent recurring characters on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight, Confessore writes, "are Black politicians like the Democratic congresswomen Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar and Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Mr. Carlson has portrayed, against the available evidence, as a kind of shadow president. He regularly disparages Black women as stupid or undeserving of their positions."

Just so we're clear, Maxine Waters is not a corrupt and embarrassing dolt who gives special favors to her husband, who once called for violence against Trump officials, made a fool of herself in front of CEOs of America's largest banks, and who threatened more violence if jurors didn't reach the "right verdict" in the Derek Chauvin trial. No, actually, Waters is a delightful, smart, and ethically sound public servant!

The same is true of Kamala Harris. She's not a cackling, incoherent imbecile who speaks to her audience as if they have lower IQs than her own. She's actually done an impeccable job with handling the border crisis, and dealing with Ukraine, combined with her vast knowledge of foreign policy. And no, don't you dare believe for one second that she was picked for this job because of her skin color, even though that's exactly what her decrepit boss told us, or that she's advanced this far in her career because of her relationship with Willie Brown. No, according to Confessore, if you believe any of that, you're racist and sexist and that's all there is to it.

And the same is true of Ilhan Omar. She's not an ungrateful immigrant who bashes this country any chance she gets, or a raging anti-Semite. Like Watters and Harris, she is also warm and wonderful. Smear them and you're a white supremacist. Got it?

For Confessore, Carlson's greatest sin may be his refusal to accept the narrative that the events at the USA Capitol on January 6, 2021 was an "insurrection" and an assault on democracy. "Mr. Carlson has become the most visible and voluble defender of those who violently stormed the USA Capitol to keep Donald J. Trump in office, playing down the presence of white nationalists in the crowd and claiming the attack 'barely rates as a footnote' . . . Accuracy isn't the point on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

As American Greatness senior contributor Julie Kelly has documented here and on her frequent appearances on Carlson's program, the only people who died on January 6 were unarmed Trump supporters—notably Ashli Babbitt, who was shot without warning at point blank range, and Rosanne Boyland, whose death the the. See. Coroner ascribed to an Adderall overdose. Carlson has rudely pointed out the federal government's double-standard in going easy on rioters who attacked and damaged federal courthouses in 2020 while keeping January 6 demonstrators charged with nonviolent offenses such as trespassing in solitary confinement ahead of their trials.

But accuracy isn't the point at America's benighted "newspaper of record."

Fortunately, Tucker Carlson is not going anywhere.

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://sputniknews.com/20220429/nat...095145039.html

Wait until a terrorist shoots down an American airliner!

[PVMonger]

{SNIP}
And you know that how? Do you think our media has talked to Putin and asked him why he invaded? Hell no. All we get this shit about Putin being a monster and wanting to restore the old USSR. {SNIP}

Who in their right mind would believe anything that Putin says anyway?

Putin told his own people that he invaded because he wanted to "de-nazify" Ukraine. That is as ludicrous as saying that the 2020 election was stolen.

Putin's own government as said that the "de-nazification" thing is true because Zelenskyy is Jewish and so was Hitler. That is as ludicrous as "Yo Semites".

Putin has also said that he believes that Ukranians and Russians are "one people" and that Ukrainians wanted him to invade. The latter part is as ludicrous as saying that the US Army took over the airports in the Revolutionary War.

Putin has said that he hasn't committed any "war crimes" and that it is all staged. That makes as much sense and saying that windmills cause cancer.

In the end, what does it matter what Putin says. He has told the truth as often as his pal, the Mango Mussolini.

[EihTooms]

Aren't there a couple of self-described financial advisors and others who pay serious money for financial advice here? At least one blithering lost and confused soul keeps begging me for financial advice and stock market prognostications and it appears he doesn't even know the critical inherent difference between stock market speculation, day trading, gambling, etc and long term investing.

Well, for those interested in long term investing for a solid, comfortable, fun and pleasurable retirement and future, I hear this Buffett fellow knows quite a bit about how to accomplish that. Probably more than anyone here, even me.

However, I did manage to sprinkle in a couple of safe haven shifts out of the market at or near the top right before a meaningful Bear Market decline and bought back in at or near the bottom right before the subsequent Bull Market Run over the decades. And that isn't exactly in line with Buffett's simpler "buy and hold a broadly diversified stock market Index fund" recommendation for most. But it worked out well for me anyway.

As always, YMMV.

Warren Buffett says monkeys could do as good a job investing as Wall Street financial advisors
May 2 2022

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/02/warr...mple-game.html

Legendary investor Warren Buffett calls investing a simple game that financial advisors have convinced the public is harder than it really is.

Speaking at Saturdays Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholders meeting, Buffett slammed Wall Street financial advisors for catching the crumbs that fall off the table of capitalism and said that in most cases, monkeys could provide better investment returns simply by throwing money at American companies.

You can have monkeys throwing darts at the page, and, you know, take away the management fees and everything, Ill bet on the monkeys (over the advisors), he said.

Buffett pointed out how since 1941, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased from $100 to more than $30,000, and said that most people need only put their money into an American business and let it grow..

[PVMonger]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nb...02/id/1068157/

Guess what? NBC News discovered the issue and called it out.

As opposed to FUX "News" whose own layers argued that nobody in their right mind should believe somebody like Tucker Carlson because he is full of shit.

Tell me something. If the majority of rightwingnut voters believe every word that Carlson says, doesn't that mean that none of them are in their right mind? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/g...porting-facts/.

[PVMonger]

Maybe listen to Our Lord and Savior or even Noam.

https://dailystormer.cn/noam-chomsky...n-the-ukraine/

https://dailystormer.cn/adam-kinzing...children-male/

Why would I listen to two of the dumbest people on the planet?

[MarquisdeSade1]

Night after night, the host of the most watched show in prime-time cable news uses a simple narrative to instill fear in his viewers: "They" want to control and then destroy "you."

A New York Times analysis of 1,150 episodes reveals how Tucker Carlson pushes extremist ideas and conspiracy theories into millions of households, five nights a week. He's done so since the beginning, but the show has gotten darker. Carlson, 52, has one of the largest megaphones in all of cable television. When President Donald Trump left office, Carlson filled the void on the right. Here's how the show works.

When you enter Carlson's world each night, you are among his 3 million-plus viewers and part of a Fox News audience that is 92% white and overwhelmingly older, according to Nielsen data. They are the "ruling class. " They threaten everything you believe in.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times.

They include Democratic and Republican officials, members of the media, Big Tech executives, academics, sports and Hollywood stars, and others...

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nb...02/id/1068157/

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ru...02/id/1068092/

[MarquisdeSade1]

So, what would you do? Give Ukraine to Putin just like Donnie would have done? Then give Putin Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Moldova too? And after that? Since the Soviet Union once occupied Poland, the Balkans, Hungary, Romania and half of Germany, give Putin those countries too? Geez, what an idiot! And a very typical rightwingnut idiot with enough IQ points to decorate a domino.

Or, would you have just bombed the Russian troops before they even invaded?

Typical Republican response. Complain, complain and complain some more without offering any concrete proposals. That the QOP playbook.

Maybe listen to Our Lord and Savior or even Noam.

https://dailystormer.cn/noam-chomsky...n-the-ukraine/

https://dailystormer.cn/adam-kinzing...children-male/

[Elvis 2008]

No, dummy! It's Chamberlain all over again. You are risking nuclear war by trying to appease a nuclear blackmailer. Give in and he's not going to stop at Ukraine. When are you morons going to learn?

Uh, Hitler zoomed through France in no time and in three months after declaring war on the USSR was on the outskirts of Moscow. Putin cannot even beat the poorest country in Europe. Does Putin have some super secret army to take over the rest of Europe no one knows about?

And yeah, I think it is a good idea to appease someone with nukes. Call me crazy.

Oh yes, we do have a higher ground after all these wars compared to the unspeakable monstrosities he's committed in Ukraine, the country that has done absolutely nothing to deserve this shit.

We have no moral high ground with Vietnam and invading Iraq for WMDs and associating them with 9-11.

the country that has done absolutely nothing to deserve this shit.

And you know that how? Do you think our media has talked to Putin and asked him why he invaded? Hell no. All we get this shit about Putin being a monster and wanting to restore the old USSR.

I told you from day one in office that Biden was buying and sending huge amounts of military supplies overseas. And then there is that weird story about biolabs. WTF is going on there? What I do know is that the Democrats have been fucking around with Russia and Ukraine since 2014 and all of a sudden there is a war there, and it is 100% all on Putin. Whenever I see a conflict, it rarely is 100% on just on one side.

Not impossible, but unlikely. The next guy will likely be Patrushev, the FSB tsar, and while he is 100% evil, he's not a psycho. I like our chances.

LOL. Matt Taibbi wrote a piece on how the media was slobbering all over Putin when he came to power after Yeltsin. Taibbi said it was more of the same. Now Taibbi is getting slammed because he is not going with the "Putin is a monster and we need to get him out" schtick. The guy lived in Russia, and his take on things is that the Russians in power are like members of a mafia family. So you are going to be betting that a member of the Corleone family is going to be more well behaved than this one after being given power? Yeah, okay.

[Elvis 2008]

Your passionate, knee-jerk defense of the Nasdaq was triggered by my wondering aloud why you continue to avoid referencing the Wall Street "standard" measure for how the broad market is doing, the S&P 500 Index, after you had been using the Dow and then switched to the Nasdaq in order to suggest "the USA stock market" was in a Bear Market simply because the Nasdaq closed below 20% from its all time record high.

So the discussion, your knee-jerk reaction, was absolutely about you defending why you tried to use the Nasdaq as that measure.

Then for some unknown winger lunatic reason you spun off into an argument only you imagined I made that an index fund tracking the Nasdaq would not be worth investing in or some such irrelevant nonsense.

Then along the way I told you exactly what I owned in the stock market, that I did not just "buy and hold" it for decades but instead accurately identified a couple of meaningful market tops and bottoms, bought low and sold high accordingly and that worked out even better for me than the simple "buy and hold" Index fund bet that Warren Buffett made and that resulted in professional active portfolio managers getting their "ass kicked" over a 10 year period.

And there you go again with more mental masturbation. For the fourth time, what are you invested in right now?

It is pretty obvious why you do not want to say. For all your bullshit praising of Biden and his economic prowess, you are not putting your money where you mouth is. You are not betting on Biden and a higher stock market.

[EihTooms]

And you are saying that you buy and hold. Why the fuck would you hold when literally every market indicator is saying things are getting worse?

And I will ask this again a third time. Are you long and betting that Biden is going to turn the stock market around?

Quit with the mental masturbation and say what you are specifically doing right now.

When the market tanks even more than it is now, I do not want you lying and coming back and sell you sold everything and went short. I want you out with it now.

For the umpteenth time, I do not "buy and hold." I have in the past moved in, out and back in the market on accurate top and bottom calls, which is how I did a bit better than the market, beat the market overall since the 1990's.

But it isn't a perfect record. Nobody has a perfect record. For example, you can't exactly do "due diligence" on factors the rating agencies are lying about as happened prior to Bush2's second Bear Market Crash or on how much a so-called potus is lying to the world about what he knows to be the true deadly risks and rapid spread of a novel coronavirus. In order to get it right more often than by merely guessing, you need to be looking at fundamentals. And they can be overridden by unknowables.

And if I had foolishly been using the Nasdaq as a measure for the broad USA stock market then, gee, I guess I just missed identifying a major market top on which to sell, sell, sell. And so did you, right?

Well, now it appears you are begging me to tell you what I think the broad USA market as measured by the Wall Street standard S&P 500 Index is going to do next in these unprecedented times of Trump's Pandemic global supply-chain destruction, all its current and future variants and consequent inflation and Trump's boyfriend's threats of nuclear war, is that it?

Ok. It was obvious for months I had not been championing a meaningful Bear Market crash demonstrably greater than about 20% below the broad USA market's all time record closing high. And I have not changed my judgement about that recently.

Therefore, I did not sell, sell, sell out of the market with my Total Stock Market Index Fund at or near the broad USA stock market top. I would not have done that on the expectation of a possible market Correction, which we are still in after months of hysterics claiming the market is crashing. It hasn't.

And I do not yet see a reason based on fundamentals rather than on a hunch about a meteor crashing into NYC any minute now to seriously prognosticate a meaningful Bear Market Crash within days, weeks or months. I think the S&P 500 will probably be hitting the 5,000 level within a year, perhaps within this year. Imo, that would not justify a sell, sell, sell call right now.

However, for me this is all just academic anyway since I have already made and spent what I wanted and needed for a comfortable retirement from the stock market, pay little attention to it anymore, not even as a hobby. I live on income streams generated from my Southern California rental property, my private sector career pension and will someday soon start adding my Social Security check to the mix since I am fast approaching the 70 year maximum for it. For me, the market can do whatever it is going to do and it won't change my life. It already did that for me.

I don't need or rely on what the stock market is doing or will do anymore. As planned. So my days of working on due diligence in order to make another critical call are over. That is no longer critical to my retirement plans, pleasure or comfort.

[EihTooms]

That is not the discussion. That is your discussion. You are doing what you always do and ignoring the data not supporting your case. The Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 are listed all the time. I would say the Dow is listed #1 then the NASDAQ and the the S&P 500 as guides to overall market performance. Yes, the S&P 500 is used as the benchmark for investing prowess, but I do not know what that has to do with anything. The NASDAQ is already in bear territory.

And in the last 100 or so years, the S&P 500 has had the third worst record this year. See the link: https://abnormalreturns.com/2022/05/...-for-humility/.

I am asking a third time what you are invested in. Seeing as how you are not going to list anything but index funds as what you have invested in, that means you are getting your ass kicked, and my question to you is why should anyone listen to you then?

If you knew jack shit about the market, you would know higher interest rates destroy stock market valuations as their multiple shrinks. Inflation hits profits because costs are higher. Then there is the inverted yield curve the most reliable indicator of an upcoming recession..

Your passionate, knee-jerk defense of the Nasdaq was triggered by my wondering aloud why you continue to avoid referencing the Wall Street "standard" measure for how the broad market is doing, the S&P 500 Index, after you had been using the Dow and then switched to the Nasdaq in order to suggest "the USA stock market" was in a Bear Market simply because the Nasdaq closed below 20% from its all time record high.

So the discussion, your knee-jerk reaction, was absolutely about you defending why you tried to use the Nasdaq as that measure.

Then for some unknown winger lunatic reason you spun off into an argument only you imagined I made that an index fund tracking the Nasdaq would not be worth investing in or some such irrelevant nonsense.

Then along the way I told you exactly what I owned in the stock market, that I did not just "buy and hold" it for decades but instead accurately identified a couple of meaningful market tops and bottoms, bought low and sold high accordingly and that worked out even better for me than the simple "buy and hold" Index fund bet that Warren Buffett made and that resulted in professional active portfolio managers getting their "ass kicked" over a 10 year period.

You even quoted me saying that was my strategy.

To which you utterly incoherently replied then as now that my doing something I clearly and unambiguously stated I did not do got my "ass kicked."

Now, can you or anyone else explain why anyone ought to take anything you say about anything seriously after that display of blithering idiocy?

[Elvis 2008]

The discussion was about whether or not the Nasdaq is a meangful measure for what the broad USA stock market is doing on a given hour, day, week, month, quarter or year. And it is not, as your link makes the case that, historically, the Nasdaq performance differs significantly from what was happening in the S&P 500, the DOW and I would certainly add the Wilshire 5000.

That is not the discussion. That is your discussion. You are doing what you always do and ignoring the data not supporting your case. The Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 are listed all the time. I would say the Dow is listed #1 then the NASDAQ and the the S&P 500 as guides to overall market performance. Yes, the S&P 500 is used as the benchmark for investing prowess, but I do not know what that has to do with anything. The NASDAQ is already in bear territory.

And in the last 100 or so years, the S&P 500 has had the third worst record this year. See the link: https://abnormalreturns.com/2022/05/...-for-humility/.

I am asking a third time what you are invested in. Seeing as how you are not going to list anything but index funds as what you have invested in, that means you are getting your ass kicked, and my question to you is why should anyone listen to you then?

If you knew jack shit about the market, you would know higher interest rates destroy stock market valuations as their multiple shrinks. Inflation hits profits because costs are higher. Then there is the inverted yield curve the most reliable indicator of an upcoming recession.

And you are saying that you buy and hold. Why the fuck would you hold when literally every market indicator is saying things are getting worse?

And I will ask this again a third time. Are you long and betting that Biden is going to turn the stock market around?

Quit with the mental masturbation and say what you are specifically doing right now.

When the market tanks even more than it is now, I do not want you lying and coming back and sell you sold everything and went short. I want you out with it now.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Night after night, the host of the most watched show in prime-time cable news uses a simple narrative to instill fear in his viewers: "They" want to control and then destroy "you."

A New York Times analysis of 1,150 episodes reveals how Tucker Carlson pushes extremist ideas and conspiracy theories into millions of households, five nights a week. He's done so since the beginning, but the show has gotten darker. Carlson, 52, has one of the largest megaphones in all of cable television. When President Donald Trump left office, Carlson filled the void on the right. Here's how the show works.

When you enter Carlson's world each night, you are among his 3 million-plus viewers and part of a Fox News audience that is 92% white and overwhelmingly older, according to Nielsen data. They are the "ruling class. " They threaten everything you believe in.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times.

They include Democratic and Republican officials, members of the media, Big Tech executives, academics, sports and Hollywood stars, and others.

Carlson tells you over and over: They don't care about you and will do whatever they can to maintain power.

He frames nearly every topic on his show as a "ruling class" plot, from gun control to marijuana legalization to COVID-19 restrictions.

Even the Western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, according to Carlson, is part of the plot. Why should you hate President Vladimir Putin when they cause everything Carlson says is wrong with society? The real enemies, Carlson implies with rhetorical questions, are his usual targets China and the USA "ruling class. " Putin, whose military has bombed Ukrainian civilians and committed atrocities, is not a foe.

It is worth noting that a USA District judge, in a 2020 ruling dismissing slander accusations against Carlson, said Fox News' lawyers argued persuasively that "any reasonable viewer 'arrive (s) with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes. " Carlson begins some segments with a grain of truth or an accurately quoted study, but then often distorts a concept to fit his narrative.

Carlson continually hammers at the idea that they care more about everything else identity politics, Afghan refugees, preventing a border wall, Roger Stone's prison sentence than you. Repetition and "they-you" framing are tools commonly used by populist or authoritarian leaders to create emotional connections with their followers.

Of 1,150 "Tucker Carlson Tonight" episodes that the Times analyzed, from November 2016 through 2021, Carlson invoked the "ruling class" in more than 800 shows.

The "ruling class," he says, wants you to just "shut up and obey."

Not only do they want to control you, Carlson warns, they want to destroy you and your way of life. They have various ways of doing this, he asserts, including importing immigrants from the "Third World" to replace you with more "obedient voters."

This premise is the crux of an unfounded racist conspiracy theory that falling birthrates and immigration are leading to the replacement of white people.

The theory echoes long-held beliefs of American white nationalists that a Jewish elite is orchestrating this replacement. ("Jews will not replace us," was the chant of white nationalists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.) Versions of "replacement theory" have been cited by perpetrators of mass shootings, like those who targeted a Pittsburgh synagogue and Hispanic shoppers in El Paso, Texas.

After Carlson promoted replacement theory on a show in April 2021, the Anti-Defamation League called for his firing.

The Times found that it was far from the first time Carlson had done so. He has amplified the idea of demographic replacement in more than 400 episodes.

Some of these segments begin with traditional conservative talking points about liberals being too weak on border security. But then Carlson continues on to say "by the way, this is a conspiracy by Democratic and some Republican elites to replace you," said Nicole Hemmer, a historian at Columbia University specializing in media, conservatism and the far right.

Carlson also posits that feminism and gender nonconformity threaten masculinity and contribute to falling birthrates. "You see that creation of the white male victim in Tucker Carlson's show," Hemmer said. "It's absolutely core to extremist circles."

Carlson highlighted shifting gender roles and falling birthrates in more than 200 episodes.

He also asserts that the ruling class' "obsession with race" and "equality" creates a world that favors the rights of people of color and discriminates against you, the viewer.

He spoke of discrimination against white people and minimized racism against people of color in at least 606 episodes.

Carlson uses white victimhood to play down the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the USA Capitol. He puts quotes around "insurrection," baselessly casting the riot as a "false-flag" operation instigated by federal officials to persecute conservatives. He asserts that they are punishing the mostly white crowd at the Capitol more harshly than the Black Lives Matter protesters who marched in the summer of 2020. Those rallies were largely peaceful.

White nationalists celebrate Carlson's message and success. "Does he actually believe in white nationalism?" asked are. Derek Black, a former white nationalist who has disavowed the movement. It doesn't really matter, he said, because Carlson is using the same rhetoric. Having the most popular cable news host "directly pulling" from their talking points "makes them feel like, 'Wow, we must be right, Black said.

David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (and Black's godfather), said on Twitter in 2020 that Trump should choose Carlson as his running mate. Nick Fuentes, another white nationalist, cheered Carlson's promotion of replacement theory.

Andrew Anglin, founder of the white nationalist website The Daily Stormer, has called Carlson "literally our greatest ally. " Carlson's "replacement" message and Carlson himself has been used to promote a White Lives Matter rally.

Carlson also uses rhetoric similar to that of men's rights activists, nativists and others on the fringes of the right. "he is a linchpin, a central node, of these different discourses, a place where they can all converge," said Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric and a professor at Texas A&M University. "And he repackages them in a way that makes his audience more likely to accept them."

Since Trump left office, Carlson has become the ideological enforcer of conservative populism. He has used his megaphone to weaponize cultural issues, like critical race theory and transgender rights, that drive the conversation in school boards and state capitals. And he sometimes uses his perch to punish Republicans who contradict his narrative. After Sen. Ted Cruz, are-Texas, called the Jan. 6 riot at the USA Capitol a "violent terrorist attack," he appeared on Carlson's show to apologize.

Carlson has said he thinks about the show in installments giving his audience one chapter tonight, one tomorrow. Many of his chapters end up in the same place: with warnings that the country and sometimes civilization itself is falling apart because of policies enacted by the "ruling class. " he has warned of such dire outcomes in nearly 600 episodes.

Over time, the show has evolved to become more potent and direct, an echo chamber of Carlson's narrative. Where Carlson once regularly interviewed guests who disagreed with him, he has increasingly devoted less airtime to opposing views and more to talking directly to you through his ever-growing monologues.

Earlier episodes almost always included at least one or two guests who disagreed with Carlson on issues like immigration and global warming.

Now, nearly all guests amplify Carlson's narrative.

Fox News did not change the guest format simply because liberals refused to come on the show, as Carlson has complained. Scrutinizing ratings data, the network learned that its audience didn't actually want to hear from the other side. "From my discussions with Fox News bookers, my takeaway is that they've made the judgment that they just don't do debate segments anymore," said Richard Goodstein, a Democratic lobbyist and campaign adviser who appeared more than 90 times on Carlson's show until the summer of 2020.

Carlson now spends more and more of the show on his opening monologues, talking directly to his viewers through the camera.

By 2020, monologues typically ran longer than 10 minutes, compared with earlier years when they were shorter or nonexistent. It's not unusual now for Carlson to talk into the camera at the start of the show for upward of 15 to 20 minutes.

He used two of his longest monologues to rail against Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020.

Over the years, the show has dedicated more segments to the most divisive issues. Carlson devoted five times as many hours to such topics in 2021 as he did in 2017, the first full year of the show, according to the Times' analysis.

In a statement, Justin Wells, the show's senior executive producer, stood up for Carlson's choice of topics and language: "Tucker Carlson programming embraces diversity of thought and presents various points of view in an industry where contrarian thought and the search for truth are often ignored. Stories in 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' broadcasts and 'Tucker Carlson Originals' documentaries undergo a rigorous editorial process. We're also proud of our ongoing original reporting at a time when most in the media amplify only one point of view."

If it's a weeknight, Carlson will be on. Over the course of an hour, he will look you in the eye and tell you that they want to control and then destroy you.

The wingers, of course, will say that the above is "fake news" because it comes from the New York Times.

Headlines.

Home.

Politics.

Tags: john durham.

Hillary Clinton.

Russia.

Trump.

2016.

Durham: Clinton Campaign Fed Mainstream Media 'Unverified Derogatory' Information About Trump.

Durham: Clinton Campaign Fed Mainstream Media 'Unverified Derogatory' Information About Trump.

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

By Nick Koutsobinas.

Sunday, 01 May 2022 06:13 PM.

Facebooktwitter.

Comment A A.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign flooded mainstream media outlets with "unverified derogatory information" about President Donald Trump that led to an investigation into the false Russian collusion narrative, Special Counsel John Durham said in court documents filed earlier this week, Just the News reports.

In the days after Clinton associates Christopher Steele and Michael Sussmann approached the FBI in Sept. 2016 with dirt that would spur the Russiagate probe, the campaign's opposition research firm sent some of the same information to New York Times journalists.

"Gents good to see you yesterday," a Fusion GPS executive wrote to New York Times reporters. "Sounded like you might be interested in some of the attached russia-related material. These are internal, open source research drafts, as agreed, please treat this as background / not for attribution. As you'll see it's all easily replicated anyway."

"Can also send you a name / Toronto memo once I dig it out," the executive added. "I'm skipping over name and company name. Believe your guys have done that up. Leave it to you to distribute internally, or not, as you see fit. Don't believe sunny isles / hollywood or panama or toronto have been touched by brands xy or z. Amazingly, don't think anyone has done up the trump tower poker ring story either. Pretty vivid color there."

The message is one of hundreds between Clinton campaign operatives and journalists obtained by Durham that are now public.

Durham recently revealed several communications with reporters in a filing designed to reject the Clinton campaign's assertion that its Steele dossier and other research was shielded from public view at an upcoming trial because it was protected by attorney-client privilege.

But Durham argues that attorney-client privilege does not apply to materials widely distributed to third parties.

In Durham's filings, he refers to the Clinton opposition research alternately as a "red herring," "unverified," "too obvious" to be true, or containing a "very weak link. " In some cases, these same adjectives were used by the very researchers helping assemble the materials.

Rep. Jim Jordan, are-Ohio, said Friday that Durham is showing just how closely the media, the Democratic establishment, and some rogue elements in USA Intelligence worked in conjunction to perpetuate the false Russiagate story in 2016 — a pattern he says the media repeated when the same forces falsely portrayed the Hunter Biden laptop as disinformation in 2020.

"What we all suspected all along is that the Clinton campaign was really pushing this," Jordan said. "And we didn't know that they just made it up out of whole cloth. But that looks like exactly what they did."

The recent Durham filing lays out several contacts between Fusion GPS, the Clinton team, and the news media, including The New York Times, ABC News, and Slate magazine.

Related Stories:

Probe: Hillary Lawyer Used Purported Russian Cellphone Data to Implicate Trump.

Rolling Stone's Taibbi: Russiagate May Have Destroyed Media's Credibility.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.