We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Is this how MAGA falls? The ideological divide within MAGA has grown increasingly harsh. Trump is not, at heart, a professional politician. Rather, he is a blend of New York developer and carnival barker. His uneasy alliance with âtech brosâ, Wall Street insiders and fervent right-wing nativists was never stable. It was held together mostly by Trump himself â and by the awfulness of the Democrats.
Even as he strikes a populist pose, some people influential in MAGA flirt with ideas like eugenic Darwinism and a permanent ruling aristocracy. Others within MAGA embrace isolationism and attacks on minorities, particularly Jews. Trump rejects such notions, but too many top GOP figures, argues Senator Ted Cruz, seem terrified of alienating the odious Tucker Carlson to do so.
– Joel Kotkin
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, âPorcupinesâ, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty FrĂ©dĂ©ric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I was kinda taking this seriously until “Tucker Carlson” as the object of fear showed up. Give me a fucking break.
The Republicans are a big tent party, there are a broad range of views that barely get along together at the edges.
The Democrats are much more conformist: ‘All within the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party.’
I don’t think anyone is terrified of alienating Carlson.
But there are people very intent on using Carlson’s mistakes to pull their own audience of followers out of the main MAGA crowd. There’s a huge opportunity here – especially since the new paradigm pays out many many dollars to people who attract lots of followers.
It has become far more important to many who are supposedly on the Right to attract that big audience, because of the riches that can be obtained by doing so.
I really doubt that Carlson et al hate Jews. I think it more likely that they love money, see it dangling, and are willing to join the BAMN crowd to get it. Because of their own large followings, they have the potential of derailing an uneasy coalition that supports all things Trump. When Matt Walsh grows his monthly checks by loudly insisting that a Big Tent must include anyone slightly to the Right – even the antisemites – it can all come unraveled.
The Laura Ingraham interview with Trump was a car crash.Trump was pretty embarrassing. Also the 50 year mortgage idea that was floated this week is awful.
The era of disavowal has long needed to be over. Buckley started it, and we’ve got a long history of ‘conservatives’ who cannot conserve anything. Cruz just wants to turn the Trump movement into the same slop they’ve been serving us all along. Since this Fuentes thing I’ve been getting unsolicited texts wanting to talk about ‘peoples views of Israel.’ I’ve been tempted to tell them to get AIPAC to make congress pass whatever Trump wants. It would actually be a good idea, because it isn’t that people hate Israel so much, but that we keep seeing our needs not being met, while others seem to be getting preferential treatment. The pro-Israel crowd makes the crazies look more legit, because the obvious play here is fix your bad pr by helping Americans rather than trying to destroy or lecture us.
Trump has largely done good with his foreign policy, in large part because that is where he is able to do something. Most things domestic need Congress and an overhaul of the courts. But even the Republicans thwart him most of the time.
I’m sorry but whoever this guy Kotkin is, he obviously is part of the “I hate Trump” people. I think this “The MAGA coalition is coming apart” notion is really mostly wishful thinking on the part of the left.
The main tiff going on is over Israel, and it seems to me that since things seem mostly settled there it isn’t at all important. I watched some of Carlson’s interview with Cruz and I thought he was pretty unfair on him, however, I mostly side with him on the Israel thing, namely that AiPAC is a foreign government advocacy organization and, insofar as we have FARA regulations, they need to declare what they are. And also that though I wish Israel the best of good wishes but have no idea why they need material support from us or why we are obliged to help them. They seem perfectly capable of dealing with it on all their own. And also, I agree with Carlson that the notion that “Israel is out most important ally in the middle east” is simply preposterous.
I do think Carlson has gone a bit looney tunes, but the idea that he is anti-Semitic is simply ridiculous. Opposing the Israeli government or opposing our support of this foreign government does not at all denote anti-Semitism and more than me opposing Joe Biden makes me anti American. And the idea that he is in it to make big money or that he has sold out is equally preposterous. He just seems to me to be utterly without a desire for power, he just wants a free space to be able to speak his mind and give his opinion, and spend most of his time huntin’ and fishin’, which I can definitely respect. FFS he lives in the backwoods of Maine, not suburban Washington.
I also think that Carlson, especially since he went looney tunes, really has much diminished influence. Megyn Kelly on the other had absolutely does. TBH I think, outside of politicians, she is the epicenter of media weight on the MAGA side these days. I mean Fox News, for example, is almost irrelevant these days. She interviewed both Carlson and Shapiro (which is really the biggest name on the pro-Israel side), and Shapiro did not come off well. To be honest I think he has put himself in a corner and is going to suffer a large loss of influence. I mean politicians aside, what MAGA folks care about is immigration, deportation, taxes, an improved economy and onshoring of industry. If you are for or against Israel, most MAGA people don’t give a shit. Really it is only politicians and the pundit class that care much about that issue.
The truth is that the biggest problem for Trump is that the economy is not doing all that great, and frankly I think that is the only thing that matters. The mid terms next year will be entirely decided on the state of the economy (and maybe the cost of healthcare which — since Obamacare — has become utterly ridiculous). Everything else is just bluster and nonsense.
As an aside, as I have said here before, probably up there with the state of the economy, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is an absolutely incalculable loss in terms of the election. It is hard to measure just how much impact he had.
And if the Republicans do lose the house next year we are in for a rough ride, and the one horse that America can ride to some form of redemption from its inevitable spiraling into doom will be taken out back, shot and sent to the glue factory.
Spiked is definitely a mixed bag nowadays ranging from the heroic (Brendan OâNeill) to the risible (Ann Furedi). Kotkinâs snarky projections along with his self-view as the adult in the room place him nearer the Furedi end of the spectrum albeit nowhere near as deranged.
Anyway Spiked is still pretty good, after all it could have descended to the level of Unherd or even Takimag (Steve Sailor and Theodore Dalrymple excepted).
Anti-Trump Monetisation (ATM) perhaps?
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here – it is not understood that the people who support these terrible ideas (or who pretend to) do NOT support President Trump – they are NOT “MAGA”.
It is clear from leaked e.mails that Mr Tucker Carlson has always hated (viciously hated) President Trump – so to call Tucker Carlson “MAGA” is an error of the worst order. Does Mr Carlson really believe the things he says about space aliens visiting the Earth or about the Jews and “Christian Zionists” (who he says he hates even more than Jews)? Most likely he does not believe the things he says – it is very likely that he is an “asset” of elements of the security and intelligence services – “paranoid”, NO it is not paranoid to hold that view.
Mr Nick Fuentes is very much the same – expressing his love of Hitler and Stalin (yes – both) and his delight in how he “fucked” Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA by infiltrating racialists into his organisation. Obviously for the purpose of discrediting it.
It is so obvious that Mr Fuentes is an “asset” of elements of the security and intelligence agencies (engaged in a “psyop” to discredit conservatives) that he might as well be wearing a shirt with “FED” written all over it.
I am reminded of Mr Ray Epps strongly encouraging people to enter the Capitol Building on January 6th 2021 – and then carefully not entering it himself, Mr Epps is an “asset” of elements of the security and intelligence agencies – and his function is the same as that of Mr Carlson, Mr Fuentes and others – their function is to discredit conservatives.
“Conservatives believe that the Jews are behind everything bad, that space aliens are visiting the Earth, that the Moon landings were faked, that Madam Macron is a man, that the dinosaurs were not real….” and-so-on.
It is astonishing that anyone falls for such obvious “False Flag” operations.
Specifically on the Ted Cruz versus Tucker Carlson dispute.
Senator Ted Cruz is a life long conservative – and one of the leading students of the Constitution of the United States of his generation.
Mr Tucker Carlson is, if we are to believe what he says (I doubt we can have much trust in anything this man says – but leave that aside) is a fan of President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt – the first American President to openly despise the limited government Constitution of the United States, and the only leading Republican to support LYNCHING (yes – mobs hanging people to death, people who have been convicted of no crime) – for example the lynching of some Italian men who were alleged (but not proven) to be members of the Mafia – no other Republican politician supported lynching (it was a Democrat Party thing). And then there is the demented platform of the Progressive, or “Bull Moose”, Party of 1912.
According to this Party Platform – the Platform of the Party that Theodore Roosevelt created, property (farm land, mines and so on) does NOT belong to the individual and family ownership, NO property belongs to “the whole community” and this “community” (read – the Federal Government) is to decide how the land is to be used – not individuals and families.
Even in the worst stages of his mental illness, King George III would never have come out with something so extreme, and something so utterly vile, as this. It is at least proto Fascist – it might have come straight from Mussolini “everything for the state – nothing outside the state”.
Another absolute banger from Brendan today.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/11/15/zohran-mamdani-and-the-ugly-rebirth-of-the-socialism-of-fools/
Kotkin loses me when he tells me how to âfeelâ about his subject- the âodiousâ Tucker Carlson.
Carlson is inded odious & frankly a bit bonkers.
I am always wary of overhyping the influence of online stuff on the general public, but the fact is that Tucker’s show is the third most popular podcast on Spotify. That’s 30 places above Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin isn’t even top 100. Also the fact is that the whole conversation is a reaction to what Tucker has said and who he has had on his show, not what’s happened on Ben Shapiro’s or Mark Levin’s shows. I would say that if you’re the one people are reacting to, you are probably setting the agenda, not them. If Tucker has ‘diminished influence’ why are they wasting their time getting so worked up? Why is Mark Levin rediscovering that cancel culture is conservative after all? All the attention and reaction just objectively suggests Tucker Carlson’s influence is still high and potentially even rising.
Do you think this is what happened when Ben Shapiro and Daily Wire pushed Candace Owens? I’m sure they made MILLIONS out of her show while they employed her.
No-enemies-to-the-right is just as insane as no-enemies-to-the-left.
Not least, because “right” and “left” are arbitrary labels.
Should i accept Tucker Carlson in my Big Tent because we have been assigned the same label?
The fact is, there are substantive differences between Tucker and yours truly:
1. If an American does not recognize the historical obligations of the US to Ukraine and especially Israel, then how can i trust him/her to take my side when i need support?
2. Part of the reason (a big part) why i have been expressing my opinion that many if not most *American* Jews are objectively antisemitic, is to highlight the insanity of the antisemites who hold the polar-opposite opinion. Such as Tucker, but mostly on the “”left””.
3. Anybody who expresses sympathy for Putin, or for people (such as Fuentes) who express sympathy for Hitler and/or Stalin, must have a philosophy which is blatantly incompatible with mine. Why should i accept them in my Big Tent?
I don’t mind if they support me (or, more realistically, Trump); but they should not expect me to reciprocate their support.
PS: I have mixed feelings about Kotkin.
He has some insight in the diagnosis, but no insight that i can detect about the cure.
Martin – Tucker Carlson was not clawed by a demon, nor are Space Aliens visiting the Earth.
As for Candice Owens – the Moon Landings were not faked, dinosaurs are real – not faked, Charlie Kirk did not appear to her in a dream to tell Candice that the Jews murdered him (and he did not appear to Tucker Carlson either – the Jews did NOT murder Charlie Kirk), and Madam Macron is not a man.
“But Tucker and Candice have millions of followers” – well that says something very depressing about millions of human beings for, as Perry and Snorri (and myself) have pointed out, Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens are either mentally ill or intelligence agency assets (con artists).
My own view is that Candice Owens is mentally ill – but that Tucker Carlson is faking it – he is either an intelligence agency asset, or a con man, or BOTH.
For example, the demon story – Glenn Beck told a story about how he once thought he was attacked by a demon, but woke up and it was all a dream (no claw marks – because it was just a dream, do not confuse dreams with real life). So Tucker Carlson decided to go one better – and pretend he had actually been attacked by a demon. He does not really believe this – he is making it up.
Call me bonkers, but having seen the rejoicing in the left over Charlie Kirkâs death, I am willing to entertain the possibility of demonic possession. And, by the way, they want Tucker Carlsonâs head, too. Whose side are you on?
I am sure as fuck not on Tucker Carlson’s side. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.
I wish you the best of luck dealing with two enemies rather than one.
Why would I want to make common cause with people no less deranged than the woke left?
When I first started visiting Samizdata years ago, my impression was that the posters and commenters were extraordinarily educated and gifted in expressing themselves. Except for Paul Marks. Although he seemed educated, he was not gifted at expressing himself in a manner that allowed for serious reflection. I think the expression is TL,DR.
Although he has managed to reduce the number of words in his posts to a readable amount, the amount of venom he manages to pack into those few words against those he disagrees with is truly stunning. So, PM,DR.
Problem is, when faced with two alligators, you can’t just decide that that’s too many and so one of them is your friend.
From what I could discern on Twitter, Candace Owens’ dinosaur denial is linked with her denial of evolution. I do think this is pretty crazy. However, it is hardly an unknown phenomenon that a lot of Americans believe in creationism and very literalist readings to the Bible. Many Republican politicians and activists have pandered to such voters for decades. Ted Cruz’s father says this about evolution for example:
‘evolution is one of the strongest tools of Marxism, because if they can convince you that you came from a monkey, itâs much easier to convince you that God does not exist.’
I then asked Grok what Ted Cruz’s views on evolution are:
Cruz has described evolution as a “theory” that is not fully proven and has “holes” in it. In a 2015 interview with Texas Monthly, he stated that he believes in “intelligent design” and that the complexity of life points to a creator rather than purely naturalistic processes. He has argued that evolution doesn’t adequately explain the origins of life or the universe.
As for demons and demon possession, it’s something I’m very skeptical of, but again these views are common in America.
That is interesting, for a number of reasons; the main reason being my suspicions that the reason why so many Americans don’t believe in evolution, is that evolution is taught in American schools with the main purpose of advancing an atheist (and ultimately collectivist) agenda.
I would welcome confirmation or falsification of my suspicion, from people who have been educated in the US.
Meanwhile, i strongly recommend watching the following couple of videos from Clint, an evolutionary biologist who believes in God.
In the first video, Clint introduces himself* and later on (beginning at about 17:20) introduces the “steel man argument” for Young-Earth creationism (ie the strongest version of the argument that YE creationists make). But the entire video is of interest (for those of us interested in this sort of things).
* judging by the introduction, he is to evolutionary theory what Charlie Kirk was to conservatism.
In the second video, we immediately discover that Tucker Carlson is also a Young Earth creationist (as was Charlie Kirk btw).
Immediately afterwards, Clint informs us that, after the 1st video, he “received a lot of positive feedback from atheists to Young Earth creationists and pretty much everyone in between”.
But then, Clint adds that “some of the most hostile responses came from atheists”. (I assume that “some” means “most” in this context.) This supports my hypothesis about the reason why Americans tend to distrust evolutionary theory.
The rest of the video is, again, quite interesting. In particular, it explains the difference between a hypothesis and a theory (highlighted above).
PS: missing link (heh) to the second video.
This is the core issue.
It is not “us” turning against Tucker: it is Tucker turning against “us”.
I’m Catholic and went to an English state school and then English universities, so probably swam in more statist and ‘socialist’ intellectual climates than most of the US. I can’t remember thinking once however that evolution was being taught to push Marxism or atheism on anyone.
Much of the Christian pushback to evolution is due to mostly radical Protestant theology, not because of any spurious link between theory of evolution and Marxism. If they actually did their homework they’d find Marxists were some of the biggest critics of evolutionary fields like sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, and Ted Cruz’s family probably would align more with Stephen Gould than either would like to admit.
I am going to offer a qualified defense of Paul Marks here.
In short: In my (never humble) opinion, his erudition is extraordinary; his critical thinking is far short of impressive.
The longer version:
A. Paul gives us a lot of historical information. It is regrettable that, without links, we cannot check whether that information is accurate.
I trust, but i also want to verify; and with Paul, it is difficult to verify.
Still, it is interesting to hear his view of history.
B. When it comes to philosophical issues, Paul shows a complete disregard for the arguments being made.
One of the most blatant examples* is his opposition to Hume’s compatibilism. Paul completely disregards the actual arguments that Hume made in his chapters about “Liberty and Necessity” (in the Treatise and in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding). Not that i think them the strongest arguments for compatibilism, but they are valid arguments; and even if they were not, you still have to confront them, if you want to argue that Hume was wrong!
* but not necessarily the most blatant example.
Bobby b- if only you had been around to advise Churchill; the King would have whipped Hitler and Stalin with one hand tied behind his back.
I tell the truth – if other people have a problem with that, that is there problem, not mine.
And I express myself clearly.
Nor is anything I write difficult to check.
Those who disagree with the above are free to jump off the nearest cliff.
Martin:
But that might be (*might* be) the reason why evolution was not weaponized in your education: there was no need for your teachers to do so, the intellectual climate was already statist.
I myself think that the Darwinian theory of evolution by reproduction-with-random-mutations + natural-selection, is intrinsically anti-statist, IF understood properly.
It is not that Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens say obviously untrue things just about Jews – they say obviously untrue things about a whole multitude of subjects (as I, and others, have pointed out).
Do they believe the things they say? I suspect that Candice Owens does believe the things she says (that the lady is mentally ill – that the lady should not be attacked, she needs help – help to restore her mental health) and that Tucker Carlson does NOT believe the things he says – that he is faking it, shamming. But-I-could-be-wrong.
What is clear is that both these people say obviously untrue things (whether they believe them or not) about a multitude of subjects.
It is also clear that President Trump does NOT agree with them – so this is nothing to do with Make America Great Again (MAGA).
This is NOT “how MAGA fails” – it is how Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens fail (fall away).
And attacking me changes nothing – the above remains the truth.
I will take the controversy over Carlson and Fuentes and the End of Make America Great Again seriously when “From the River to the Sea” is no longer a cool thing to go around shouting, and when the Left disavows their politicians with nazi tattoos, their bigots, and their crazies. Putting on a keffiyeh seems to be the ultimate protection from accusations of antisemitism, and having a (D) after the name (in the US) seems to be the ultimate protection from nazi, racist, bigot, and all the other -ist and -phobe accusations.
I am also tired of letting the Left define the Right. I am tired of them setting the premises for the arguments, and of always having to be on defense and pressured to disavow this one or that one.
Fuentes is not of the Right – he is only that by the Left’s definitions of the Right. He seems to be to be an opportunist, capitalizing on multiple cultural phenomena. Maybe he’s a plant or an operative – whatever he is, he’s a crazy the Right has been saddled with by the Left. No matter what purity spiral the Right goes into to try to fix this, the Left will never be satisfied until there is no more Right to push back against their agenda.
Carlson I have no opinion on – or both opinions on. He seems at times to be on the crazy end of the spectrum, but other times he seems to have shined some light on some very shady things. So maybe he is being discredited so that that light can be pooh-poohed away. I still think sunlight is the best disinfectant. Yes he gave that Fuentes cockroach a platform to spout his nonsense, but now those ravings are out in the open now, and subject to ridicule.
So I don’t know. I’m more concerned about the illegal migrant invasion and their freeloading, blatant fraud of taxpayer money, and an ever-growing group of people that are not expected to follow any laws, and who can destroy life and property with willful abandon.
These are just my opinions. I have a strong feeling of being manipulated here, in this controversy over Fuentes and Carlson, and my back is a bit up.
Speaking as someone who thought Tucker Carlson was once an interesting social commentator, I might share that view had I not bothered to see what Carlson said and did myself (i.e. not just what others claimed he said and did). That’s why I see Carlson as a liar & a fool now & regard him as toxic to the “right”.
I am less bothered by Fuentes as he was so obviously an absurd incoherent figure I marvel that anyone ever took him seriously.
Lab Rat
The reason you “have a strong feeling of being manipulated here, in this controversy over Fuentes and Carlson” is because the intention is to try to manipulate you. Kudos for recognizing that and being annoyed by it.
I have followed the shocking smear campaign against Tucker Carlson since he “platformed” Darryl Cooper months ago. What outraged me, and many others, was not that those smearing Carlson disagreed with Cooper’s viewpoints (or Carlson’s), but that it was obvious they had not bothered to listen to the lengthy interview before using their own platforms to misrepresent the interview in aid of claiming that not only Cooper is an antisemite but that Carlson is as well for having “platformed” Cooper and said nice things to and about him. After that, the smear merchants merely needed to sit back and wait while their acolytes spread online (anonymously, for the most part) the allegations of antisemitism based only on the inaccurate characterizations they were more than happy to regurgitate. Since then, this smear campaign has taken on a life of its own and there are people who are quite sure that every thing he says is evidence of his antisemitism.
You can bet your bottom dollar — as they say here in the US — that the purpose of the ongoing smear campaign against Carslon is, in fact, to attempt to discredit and/or silence any suggestion that the impact current US foreign policy has on US citizens might need to be revisited in light of the extraordinary unchecked corruption at the highest levels of the US government and lawlessness in US streets that is wreaking havoc on US citizens while US taxpayer money is being sent to foreign countries. That is a huge concern of Carlsonâs. Yes, he does some interviews with goofy people on goofy topics and he sometimes says some goofy things, but it is his damn âplatformâ and he has every right to.
The same smear campaign technique was used for the Ukraine conflict, although to a much more muted extent. I am one of those who believe the estimated 1.5 million military casualties resulting from that conflict could have been reduced or avoided altogether. When I think of those (probably unnecessary) deaths, I canât help but think of the repulsive spectacle of US members of Congress personally signing artillery shells or other munitions presumably paid for by US taxpayers and intended for use in Ukraine.
I certainly agree with you, having actually listened to the entire Fuentes interview, that he did expose himself as a creep with no identifiable political ideology. The bandwidth being expended on this issue is not to discredit Fuentes (he does a wonderful job of that himself), but is part of the ongoing campaign to smear Carlson as an antisemite for having âplatformedâ Fuentes. And for asking the âwrongâ questions.
Fraser Orr at 3:16am nails it.
My meager thoughts on the Kotkin piece:
Kotkin should be more careful to point out that he is writing about the national level political movers and shakers than about the rank and file of the MAGA people. Almost nothing of what Kotkin ascribes to MAGA resonates with me and I believe Iâm a firm, middle of the pack MAGA guy.
âMany Latinos shifted to Trump in 2024, but the brutality of the ICE crackdown, reported with typical zeal by his media foes, has eroded his appeal, as seen in results from New York, New Jersey and Virginia.â â âeroded his appealâ? In hard left, solidly Blue States and Cities? Maybe, but what’s that got to do with anything?
ââŠthe economy, whose troubles may have begun under Biden but now belong to Trump.â Four years of horrible policies, a COVID response more costly than any right thinking person could envision. And after 10 months in Office, Trump now âownsâ this mess? No. I get that, largely because of MSM framing, Trump DOES own this, politically. No denying that the stink of past Presidents always sticks to the current bozo in office. But any rational analyst sees that the last 10 months have done a LOT to reverse the worst of the previous 4 years.
âAt its worst, MAGAâs hardest faction embraces openly racist groups such as the Proud Boys.â Is Kotkin trying to do an analysis of MAGA, the heart of the movement, or call out extremes that 90% of Trump voters find disgusting? These bits in Kotkinâs piece say more about where Kotkin is coming from than anything about MAGA.
âBetween 2010 and 2023, they [Hispanics] accounted for 56.3 per cent of total population growth. The Census Bureau projects theyâll expand by another 31 million between 2025 and 2060.â Not after Tom Homan is through!
ââŠeven more moderate Democrats, Californiaâs Gavin Newsom and the âAbundanceâ movement among them, see cost-of-living issues as a ticket to national powerâ. All of our âaffordabilityâ issues are the direct result of Government interference, mostly by Dems. If the Stupid Party gets the messaging right on this, they will clean up in the 2026 midterms. I donât have high hopes theyâll get it right.
“Anti Leftist” there has been no “smear campaign” against Tucker Carlson – unless you mean he has smeared himself
Almost the very first thing Mr Carlson said was that Mr Cooper, an apologist for the Nazis, was the most “honest” historian in America.
In short Mr Carlson is, like Mr Cooper and Mr Fuentes, a scumbag. Not a “smear” – a FACT, out of his own mouth.
“Lab Rat” – the only person trying to manipulate you is Mr Carlson himself – who is trying to associate conservatives with Nazi drivel, as well as nonsense about space aliens visiting the Earth, and him being attacked-by=a-demon (is that another “smear” “Anti Leftist) and so on.
The midterm elections are less than a year away – unless people like Tucker Carlson are cut off, and cut off now, they will drag Republicans down to defeat – by associating Republicans with their Nazi garbage, and with their space aliens nonsense, and all the rest of it.
How much help was Mr Carlson in the New York Mayoral election? Or in the elections in New Jersey or Virginia?
He was no help at all – and he never intended to be of any help, not to Republicans. He did not attack the Democrats – he was too busy boosting the Islamic Republic of Iran, and spinning lies about the murder of Charlie Kirk (ditto Candice Owens).
HE, Mr Carlson, is the one “manipulating” you – he is not working for the side you think he is working for.
He, Mr Tucker Carlson, does NOT want Republicans to win at election time – is that clear for enough for you?
And he HATES President Trump.
Part of the problem is that the left have so overused the word “Nazi” that when real Nazis, like Mr Cooper and Mr Fuentes, turn up – people do not believe it (“the boy who cried wolf” eventually faced a real wolf – but no one believed his screams, till it was too late).
Are Mr Fuentes and Mr Carlson really working for the Deep State – saying things they do not really believe in order to discredit conservatives? I think they probably are – Mr Cooper really seems to believe his Nazi stuff, but Mr Fuentes and Mr Carlson scream “working for the Feds” – at least I believe so.
But, be that as it may, the test is not “do they believe their own garbage?” but rather “are they are helpful at election time?” = and it is clear that they are NOT and are NOT trying to be helpful, not to Republicans.
They do not want conservatives to win at election time – everything they do makes election victory less likely, and they HATE President Trump – Mr Carlson even admitted that in his e.mails.
Does anyone really believe that Nick Fuentes likes a man, President Trump, who has been close to the Jewish community all his life and whose daughter in law is Jewish.
If Mr Fuentes is the sincere Hitler lover he claims to be (although he also claims to love Stalin) – he is no friend of President Trump, and neither are the rest of them – Mr Carlson, Mr Cooper and so on.
They are not trying to help President Trump – they are trying to hurt President Trump.
Paul Marks,
Would like to have your take on this:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/11/04/the-attacks-on-heritage-and-kevin-roberts-are-really-about-foreign-policy-and-j-d-vance/
Anti-Leftist- Thanks, that article clarifies the real issues here.
Anti-Leftists wrote:
Presumably by Ukraine agreeing to be annexed by Russia, at which point only the Ukrainian intelligentsia would have been exterminated. Folks such as you are why European nations really do need to stop relying on the USA for their any aspect of their security, which I am sure you would actually agree with me on.
“Thanks, that article clarifies the real issues here.”
Dissent. The real issue is the crowd telling me I need to accept a Fuentes and a Walsh as brothers-in-arms and then sucking the air out of the public-discourse room until I agree with them, to the detriment of public support of Trump and MAGA.
Everyone seems intent on educating me as to how the REAL reason for this pissing match is (fill in their favorite issue-of-the-day.)
No, it’s grifters seeing an opening.
Perry de Havilland,
Upon what facts would you presume that I would like to see Ukraine annexed by Russia and anyone “exterminated”?
bobby b,
I believe you reside in the US. Is there some recently passed law of which I am unaware that prevents you from ignoring the “grifters”? Isn’t it the case that, in fact, you want the “grifters” silenced so no one can hear their opinions?
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that at least 50% of the population of what we used to call “Western society” has become unhinged. It’s disturbing to watch this mass descent into madness. I fear for my grandchildren.
And, yes, absolutely, I want to see European nations stop relying on the USA for their any aspect of their security since it appears they are intent on destroying themelves. You betcha!
Do you support military aid to Ukraine?
I do not support military aid to Ukraine from US taxpayers.
European nations have once again blundered into a situation from which they are unable to extricate themselves.
It is not the case that more dead and maimed young people or US taxpayer funds will miraculously give you the “win” you think you deserve.
It is unfortunate that you relied on the previous US administration’s promises and lies to get your nations into this very sad position. Joe Biden and Anthony Blinken are no longer calling the shots as they and their disastrous foreign policy were resoundingly rejected by US voters just about a year ago.
I do not want them silenced.
I want them to STFU.
There is a difference.
Well yes, to the extent they have underspent on military infrastructure & procurement. But the way to “extricate” themselves is actually quite simple (not easy but simple). This is a problem that is absolutely amenable to a “throw money at the problem” approach, with the payoff being containing a massively degraded Russia as far east as possible.
bobby b,
âI do not want them silenced.
I want them to STFU.
There is a difference.â
Try explaining that to Tyler Robinson.
Tell me, in words you would use for a ten-year-old, what you mean by this.
I know I’m not understanding what you really meant, because it seems to me that you’re saying that criticism of Walsh/Carlson/et al will cause their deaths, and that would be too stupid to even type anonymously.
The only person who “smeared” Mr Tucker Carlson was Mr Tucker Carlson himself – he condemned himself by his own words, for example calling the Nazi apologist Mr Cooper the most “honest” historian in America.
Nor was Mr Carlson any help to Republicans in the recent elections – and he did not try to be of any help to Republicans.
Mr Carlson does not like President Trump – he hates President Trump. And Mr Carlson is not trying to help, he is trying to hurt – he (and others – such as Mr Fuentes) wish to associate conservatives with Nazis – they are doing this on purpose. They are doing this because they want conservatives to LOSE at election time.
Are they being blackmailed, or are they doing this out of their own perversity?
In the case of Mr Fuentes I suspect he is being blackmailed – in the case of Mr Carlson I suspect he is being politically perverse.
Exactly correct. The thing that enrages me about many people with Trump Derangement Syndrome is they so often just make stuff up or wilfully misreport him. But with Tucker Carlson, all it takes to discredit the man is to accurately report what he really did say.
bobby b,
“Tell me, in words you would use for a ten-year-old, what you mean by this.
I know Iâm not understanding what you really meant, because it seems to me that youâre saying that criticism of Walsh/Carlson/et al will cause their deaths, and that would be too stupid to even type anonymously.”
Try this: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_95ef0bfa-7397-4aaf-8995-88ed09342890
Without winning elections you can not do anything – not cut taxes, not repeal regulations, not build the border wall, not get government spending under control, you can do NOTHING.
Are Tucker “space aliens are visiting the Earth” Carlson, Nick “I am a fan of Stalin” Fuentes, Candice “Charlie Kirk came to me in a dream and told me that false friends murdered him” Owens, and-so-on, of use in winning elections? Well they are not useful to President Trump – they are useful to the DEMOCRATS – who love the pro Hitler rantings and the stuff about Winston Churchill being the worst villain of World War II (do you go along with that Anti-Leftist – you think that Winston Churchill was the arch villain of World War II?).
Carlson, Cooper, Fuentes, Owens – they are all helping the DEMOCRATS, whether deliberately (perhaps because they are being blackmailed – as I suspect Mr Fuentes is being blackmailed – over his sexuality), or because they are too mentally confused to understand what they are doing.
âBulverismâ- my new word of the day from C S Lewis.
Ha! That was good.
But, no, I can’t buy it.
I’m a 70-year-old non-Jewish atheist. Since I was 15, I have been a (probably “rabid” would be a good word here) supporter of Israel.
Now, you’re indicating that I should speak respectfully of people who wish to wipe Israel away by violence (so as not to lower the tone of discourse), and who, on top of that, insist that I consider them to be my teammates.
I’ll just continue to be impolite, thank you. I won’t call anyone “Hitler”. I consider “Fuentes” bad enough in its own right.
Jmg,
Good word. Examples out wazoo here.
Mr Fuentes also supports Stalin. “I am a fan”, “his birthday is a special day for me”.
Candice Owens claims that the evolution did not happen, and that the dinosaurs were faked (not even animals killed by Noah’s flood – faked), and that the Moon landings were also faked, and that Madam Macron is a man.
Tucker Carlson claims he was attacked by a demon – indeed clawed by one. And that we are being visited by space aliens.
So it is a bit more than “the Jews”.
Fuentes, Owens and Carlson would lead to conservatives to total defeat – is that what you want “Anti Lefist” and Jmg?
But Paul, reporting what Fuentes, Owens, and Carlson actually provably say (all without BBC-style creative editing) is a smear campaign apparently đ
The notion that sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy is hard for some people.
I do believe that Madam Macron is more man than her husband, but then maybe so am I?…đ€
I know nothing except hearsay about Fuentes (and i am not even from Barcelona). WRT Owens and Carlson, my hypothesis is that, when you keep eating brain-damaging food, the damage is eventually bound to show. (Although it didn’t for Trump.)
My personal experience is that this damage is at least partially reversible, so there is hope. RFK Jr might, just possibly, be the best thing that happened in US politics since the abolition of slavery — in the long term.
This original post was about Kotkinâs take on âisolationism and attacks on minorities, particularly Jewsâ and the odiousness of Tucker Carlson. Iâll admit I did not read the article because, as I said, Iâm very familiar with this smear campaign in all its forms and permutations.
Instead of speaking to the real issue â is Tucker Carlson an antisemite apart from his âAmerica firstâ views or because of them? â Paul Marks and the Paul-Marks-adjacent Perry de Havilland have veered off on tangents into demons, space aliens, UFOs, Stalin, faked moon landings, Madam Macron, lynching, and dinosaurs, among other things.
I am reminded of the saying: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.â
Anti-Leftist: as one of the people triggered by Kotkin’s assertion Tucker Carlson was odious, how it is a “smear” to judge Carlson’s credibility by Carlson’s own unedited words? I also find it hard to take David Icke serious as well for similar reasons.
What facts do you think are against us? đ
And, FINALLY, I queried my expert Grok and here’s how it defines “bulverism”:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_0dd77455-661d-4602-b2ba-607cf796d8f9
Great description, Jmg, for what is happening here.
Good bye.
Perry – you are not going to get a rational answer from “Anti Leftist”.
Mr Carlson has repeatedly said obviously false things, on a whole range of subjects, but somehow it is a “smear” to mention it.
As for loyalty – Mr Carlson has been attacking Senator Ted Cruz for some time (in the latest twist Tucker Carlson has even blamed Ted Cruz for the rise of Nazis such as Mr Cooper and Mr Fuentes – which is utterly bizarre as it is Mr Carson who has been promoting them, and Senator Cruz who has been opposing them).
Quite some time ago Mr Carlson interviewed Senator Cruz – and instead of talking about the nuclear weapons program if the Islamic Republic of Iran and its pushing of terrorism around the world (its proxies have killed hundreds of Americans), Mr Carlson started asking irrelevant questions, such as what is the population of Iran – basically changing the subject, it was bizarre.
Mr Carlson clearly hates both President Trump (as we know from the e.mails) and Senator Cruz – but likes people such as the Nazi apologist “most honest historian” in America, Mr Cooper, and Mr Fuentes.
It is very odd – unless Mr Carlson is deliberately trying to do harm.
Oh, I know, they’re always speaking with one voice, joined at the hip.
đ
Come on, who among us has never said, jokingly, âI wish I could be Stalin for a dayâ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGcBvrbcNw&list=RDTPGcBvrbcNw&start_radio=1
bobby b,
Well, I had thought to exit my own self from this âconversation,â and just monitor it for entertainment, BUT as you are someone whose comments I previously thought were worth reading, I just cannot resist.
Yes, Perry de Havilland is âadjacentâ to Paul Marks to the same extent Tucker Carlson is âadjacentâ Nick Fuentes. In other words, if Tucker Carlson is an antisemite for âplatformingâ the comments of Fuentes on âkey issues like anti-interventionism and skepticism toward Israelâ (see link below), then I donât see how you can argue that Perry de Havilland is not âadjacentâ to the absolutely bizarre Paul Marks who regularly calls people with whom he disagrees âNazis.”
Again, here is what my buddy Grok says about that:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_9945b3d6-f46a-44e2-9f48-91e707a81190
I think thatâs a pretty fair assessment.
We all need to get on board with the new terminology: if you allow someone to say something you disagree with, you are adopting that person’s satements without qualification (i.e, you are “adjacent”). So, Tucker Carlson allowed Fuentes to speak, therefore he is committed to any statement Nick Fuentes makes on the Tucker Carlson “platform.”
You see how this works? You have a “platform.” Someone you “platform” is an antisemite. Ergo, your platforming of an antisemite makes you “adjacent” to that person and voila you are an antisemite. Or a Nazi (the preferred term of Paul Marks and the Paul-Marks-adjacent Perry de Havilland).
Cheers!
I know, I got a good old giggle from that too! đ
Ehhhh.
I think it would be fair to say that Paul and I are not exactly the best of friends (the chances of us getting drunk and getting tattoos together are slim to zero), but I feel honour-bound to note that he doesn’t do this.
and FWIW, the more banter-inclined population of Samizdata are reading my above comment and drafting comments along the lines of “and let’s be honest, Neon would probably remember being called a Nazi”
đ