0:00

BASS BOOSTED

0:03

MUSIC RADIO NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-KNOWLEDGE

0:11

FIGHT BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH

0:16

Dan and Jordan, I'm sweating. KnowledgeFight.com,

0:20

it's time to pray. I have great respect

0:22

for Knowledge Fight. Knowledge Fight.

0:25

I'm sick of them posing

0:26

as if they're the good guys saying we are the

0:28

bad guys. Knowledge Fight. Dan

0:30

and Jordan. Knowledge Fight. It'll work.

0:33

It'll work. It'll work. I

0:35

need, I need money. It'll work. It'll work.

0:37

It'll work. It'll work. Andy in

0:40

Kansas. Andy in Kansas.

0:42

Stop it. Andy in Kansas. Andy in Kansas.

0:45

Andy in Kansas.

0:46

It's time to pray. Andy in Kansas. You're

0:48

on the air, thanks for holding. Hello, Alex, I'm a

0:50

fifth-time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work.

0:53

Knowledge Fight. NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NOW-knowledgefight.com

0:58

I love you. Hey, everybody. Welcome

1:00

back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. We're

1:02

a couple dudes. I like to sit around, worship at the altar of Selene,

1:05

and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh,

1:07

indeed we are, Dan. Jordan. Dan. Jordan.

1:10

I have a quick question for you. What's up? What's your bright spot

1:12

today, buddy? My bright spot today, Jordan, is

1:14

I got a little bit of a zip package

1:17

from Black Dragon Queen Christy.

1:19

Oh, hey, Christy. Oh, yeah.

1:22

A lovely mini-block

1:25

Lego kit of succulents. I

1:27

got some little cacti and what have you. I've not

1:29

built this yet. I've not opened it up, but I'm very excited.

1:33

It's a great compromise of, you know,

1:35

I love building little mini-block stuff. Totally.

1:38

It's plants that won't die. They won't die. Although

1:41

succulents are the ones that you don't have to water

1:43

that much. So this is like taking

1:46

the problem that doesn't exist with succulents.

1:48

Sure.

1:49

Because you could just leave a succulent forever. Sure.

1:51

Sure. It'll be fine. Right. It's

1:54

basically a Lego to begin with. Right. That's

1:56

very nice. And it included a lighting

1:59

kit. Lego lighting kit that is

2:01

I have no idea how this

2:03

thing is gonna work

2:05

It's got like wires and and shit,

2:07

but it's Lego branded. Yeah, I don't

2:09

know if it's a fake light. Yeah, I Have

2:12

no idea what's going on, but it looks really cool,

2:14

and I'm excited to build it So thank you so much Christie.

2:17

Yeah, that's that is very cool Also

2:19

came with a nice book how to talk to your cat

2:21

about gun safety That's important Which I

2:24

have not opened up to figure out if it's a joke

2:26

book with a fake title and all

2:28

the pages are blank Or if

2:30

someone actually wrote a book about how to talk to

2:32

your cat about guns I don't know that

2:35

that

2:35

does seem like an interesting Sequel

2:38

to where to hide your guns not

2:40

not don't give it to your cat don't give it to your cat Yeah,

2:42

that's what I'm saying. It's not where you hide it See, that's why you have to

2:44

write the second book because everybody was like

2:47

oh, whatever. I'll just give it to my cat Boom,

2:50

that's where guns go. Hey, so then put this

2:52

in your litter box That's

2:55

not you talk to your cat Thank

2:57

you

2:58

anyway, what's your bright spot my bright

3:00

spot Dan is that school

3:02

is over I

3:05

mean winter today

3:09

Perfect time for summer break absolutely,

3:12

but no my my wife is free

3:15

from the Evil clutches

3:17

of work so day to day

3:19

nonsense It's gonna be great.

3:21

Hey all right great more time together

3:24

all of it exercise one

3:26

is

3:27

Eating better

3:30

The whole thing we're gonna do it all eating tennis

3:32

rackets I if only if only

3:35

right we're gonna make them out of cotton candy. I'm gonna

3:37

make you a Tennis

3:39

racket out of beef jerky a beef

3:42

jerky tennis rack. Yep.

3:43

All right mm-hmm. Are you going

3:45

to weave it? Yes? I

3:49

Was just trying to think of the ways that you could

3:52

do I've got no buttons to make so

3:54

I need a project All right, so you get the

3:56

you get the jerky for the for

3:58

the the racket

3:59

You get the hard stuff, but

4:02

then you got to use the the beef

4:04

sticks for the for the netting

4:06

do I I

4:08

Mean I would assume mmm. This is

4:10

a seat when you assume you make an ass out

4:12

of you and me That's what happens.

4:14

That's fair. I mean that wouldn't be

4:16

the first time. I've done either of those things I

4:19

haven't thought this through fully I might use Twizzlers,

4:21

okay Now

4:24

you're a joke you might be the outside And

4:26

then twizzlers for the net is in salty

4:29

and sweet are fine, but not with not with

4:31

Twizzlers and jerky That's just not gonna happen

4:33

chocolate and peanut butter. No is not Those

4:36

are the two worst textures to combine

4:38

together in history. Yeah, they're pretty bad.

4:40

I Recently saw

4:42

a Twizzlers commercial sure and it

4:44

was something like

4:46

chew it over or something

4:48

like that Sure, like that's the twix

4:50

slogan slogan

4:52

you guys just ripping off Twix Everybody

4:55

who chews stuff you got to take your time with it sooner

4:57

or later you say it you it over I was I was

4:59

infuriated It's a little disappointing. That's dirty

5:01

man. Yeah, I mean I thought that was done whenever

5:04

big league Chew did it you

5:05

know big league chew it over, but they didn't

5:07

have a commercial that said that yeah They weren't allowed to

5:10

too close to tobacco mm-hmm

5:12

I feel like my parents didn't allow me to have that

5:14

or candy cigarettes Yeah, you

5:16

know those were things that were very

5:19

much no no no I'm not going to say

5:21

that candy cigarettes led to me smoking

5:23

But I did enjoy candy cigarettes, and then I

5:25

also greatly enjoyed regular cigarettes So

5:28

I mean it's not unrelated.

5:30

I suppose hmm I

5:32

think did you did you just enjoy

5:34

the gesticulating you could do with a candy cigarette

5:36

basically? And I think I did the same thing with

5:38

the regular cigarette, too Yeah, did

5:41

you ever

5:42

did you ever try and light a candy cigarette?

5:44

No What

5:47

that's very smart of you. I didn't even know he was

5:49

made out of chalk Wasn't it they

5:52

were just garbage. I think they were like

5:54

gum inside.

5:55

Oh you had you had better kids I think

5:57

I've been different varieties of candy cigarettes

5:59

I want to say that the ones we had

6:02

were essentially chalk. What about wax lips?

6:04

You ever fuck with wax lips? Never fucked with

6:06

a wax lip in my life Not once

6:08

have I fucked with a wax lip and you can quote

6:10

me on that. I will I'm not going down

6:13

for any of this wax lip cancellation

6:15

does a lot of rumors that Jordan

6:18

Holmes is a man who's known

6:20

for never done the wax lips a notorious

6:22

wax lip Enjoyer oh no

6:24

and I get it. I understand why people do the wax

6:27

lips, but that's not for me Oh, I'm really glad

6:29

to hear that why do they

6:29

do it? Because

6:33

it's been an issue for me. I've never understood

6:35

me neither So Jordan

6:37

today we have an episode to go over. I do I

6:39

do believe we do yes I

6:42

was thinking about it and

6:45

I so on

6:47

our last episode I

6:49

Ended by saying we're going back to the past yes,

6:51

and that was something that I was going to do Yeah,

6:53

but I also felt a little bit of a draw

6:55

towards So doing something a

6:57

little bit different right um novelty

7:00

well, yeah kind of yeah So

7:03

the for a long time people have wanted

7:05

us to branch out to cover other

7:08

things And there aren't a whole lot of

7:10

other things that really fit within

7:12

the category of you

7:14

know stuff that We can

7:16

cover in a way that I think is in our

7:19

in our wheel house right right right? You

7:21

know there are folks like Tim Poole who are kind

7:23

of an option sort of but he's

7:25

also like a shithead clout-chasing

7:28

Trolley asshole, and I don't really

7:31

care to engage With a lot

7:33

of stuff like that right not to say that he's not

7:35

somebody who?

7:36

shouldn't be you know

7:39

Monitored of paid attention to sure it's just

7:41

maybe that's not what I Find

7:44

my abilities suited

7:47

for right all right project Camelot is

7:49

kind of a bummer lately Jim

7:51

Baker is a disaster gone um

7:54

There's people like Russell Brand, but I

7:57

don't know maybe maybe I'll do an episode

7:59

about him at some point

7:59

but in terms of like a regular

8:02

source of something to look at right I'm not sure

8:04

that that's our our Lane

8:08

I feel like we come into an issue

8:11

where finally we and our audience are

8:13

at odds here, right? Okay So

8:16

when we do episodes about other people

8:18

our audience enjoys them and the reason

8:21

being is because we are making an enjoyable Episode

8:23

out of it right we do not

8:25

enjoy it because it is not enjoyable

8:28

Well, so there's a little

8:30

bit of a pushback there, but there's a disconnect

8:33

sure I'm not sure I think that that whether

8:36

it's enjoyable for us is kind

8:38

of really down the line of Priorities

8:41

because I'm sure how enjoyable is it ever

8:43

to really even talk about Alex none at all? We've

8:46

got used to it. Yeah, that's true that

8:48

other people maybe we're not used to hearing yeah

8:51

But I think that there is a certain

8:53

type of figure that we are Well

8:57

equipped to discuss right and

8:59

then there's figures that maybe our

9:01

skill sets aren't designed towards Yeah,

9:03

you know someone like Tim Poole I feel like you

9:06

could end up in a situation

9:08

where you want to scream at him on Twitter like you did with

9:11

But Greenwald and that plays into

9:13

like his whole thing sure he's kind

9:15

of trying to make people angry Yeah, he's baiting

9:18

and yeah, yeah, there's there's a Intentional

9:21

strategy of like boosting engagement

9:23

that comes along with that. It's really

9:25

transparent totally doing yeah So

9:29

anyway, this is a long way of saying I decided

9:31

that now that Tucker is away from Fox News

9:35

I thought maybe we should try we

9:37

should give it a test balloon

9:40

and see if we can Apply

9:43

our skills and our our

9:45

shit to his Twitter show I I

9:48

mean We we had a slight

9:50

conversation about this yeah, I told you

9:52

we shouldn't do wherein you argue that we should

9:54

definitely not do this Yeah, and you you

9:56

you couched it in terms as though it was it's

9:59

entirely my fault

9:59

Which I'm fine with I'm fine with that

10:02

no trying to save

10:04

you from Like what like

10:07

you have sensitivities about people's

10:09

voices. I do that's like you know Trump

10:13

or Tucker they're kind of the people that

10:15

like you get mad hearing them Alex

10:17

would you've gotten used to yeah? Yeah? Well? I will

10:19

say this all right here I think is

10:22

why I am more willing to jump

10:24

into that now than otherwise mm-hmm

10:27

Tucker doesn't have a boss anymore That's

10:29

what's important to me

10:31

like the more I think about the the

10:33

like thread that keeps people Interesting

10:36

hmm. It's not having a boss. It's

10:38

not having a boss

10:40

There is a ability to speak freely

10:42

that can lead you towards making

10:45

huge dumb mistakes So

10:52

well when I texted you I said

10:54

you know I'd been going down this road

10:56

preparing an episode, but I didn't think

10:59

we should do it Because of you

11:01

know it's gonna be awful for you sure and then

11:03

also just like I don't know exactly if it

11:05

works for us Mm-hmm I just had

11:07

some kind of like I'm not sure and that's part of the reason

11:09

why you know want to try a test balloon Here we

11:11

go it is let's see what we do, but yeah, you

11:14

said no. I think we should I'm like well

11:16

all right here We go to yourself. This is what we do.

11:18

I earned it. I do not get to

11:20

complain about it Yeah, that's what's important so

11:22

we're gonna talk about the first episode

11:25

uh-huh of his his Twitter show And

11:27

so it might be a little bit shorter

11:30

of an episode than some of our other ones

11:32

because his episodes are only like 10 Minutes long

11:34

what or so on Twitter? Yeah, okay?

11:37

It's just basically like what would have been

11:39

his opening monologue. Yeah, or whatever

11:41

fascinating And so I was gonna do the

11:43

first two episodes because those are the ones that are out

11:46

now at the time of recording

11:48

But I figured you know we'll try

11:50

out the first one if it works. We'll do the second one

11:52

go from there so let us know

11:54

if you enjoy it and We'll

11:57

find out if you're hearing this we

11:59

did

11:59

release the episode. Yeah. So,

12:03

before we get down to this, Jordan,

12:05

let's take a little moment to say hello to some new wonks. Oh,

12:07

that's a great idea. So first, Athena and

12:09

her wife are not loser little titty babies.

12:11

Thank you so much, you're an IHOP policy wonk.

12:13

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Thank

12:16

you. Next, Cult of Celine merch when? Thank

12:18

you so much, you're an IHOP policy wonk.

12:19

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Next,

12:22

I want to take a time out from thanking wonks and

12:24

make sure everyone knows I'm considered the

12:26

Bret Hart of podcasting. Thank

12:28

you so much, you're an IHOP policy wonk.

12:30

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. How

12:32

dare you make me compliment myself. Is

12:34

Bret Hart's the good, Bret Hart's the good. He's

12:37

the hit man. Okay, good. He's the excellence

12:39

of execution. Alright, alright, alright, alright. One of the

12:41

best. Alright, alright, alright. But he's Canadian.

12:43

Oh no, get the fuck outta here.

12:46

Next, hey Timmy IT, it's time

12:49

to pray. Thank you so much, you're an IHOP policy wonk. I'm

12:51

a policy wonk. Thank you very much. And

12:53

happy birthday Shay. I appreciate

12:55

you like Alex appreciates donuts in the break

12:58

room.

12:59

Stop it. That wasn't part of

13:01

the chat. I just wanted to throw it in. You're now a policy wonk.

13:03

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Thank

13:05

you. And we have a technocrat in the mix Jordan. So thank you so much

13:07

to Ex-spouse of God.

13:10

Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat.

13:12

I'm a policy wonk. For stars, go

13:14

home to your mother and tell her you're brilliant. Someone,

13:17

someone, sodomite sent me a bucket of poop. Daddy shark. Jarr

13:22

Jarr Binks has a Caribbean

13:24

black action. He's a loser.

13:27

Little, little titty baby. I don't

13:29

want to hate black people. I renounce Jesus

13:31

Christ. Thank you so much.

13:33

Thank you very much. And I guess I should acknowledge

13:35

right now that Alex,

13:38

you know, we'll cover on Wednesday his

13:41

coverage of Trump being indicted again.

13:44

I know probably people are curious about that. We will

13:47

get to that. All right. All right.

13:49

That's something that I felt drawn to

13:51

trying. Yeah. And you know, if you, if

13:53

you wait too long, then he's on episode

13:56

six or seven of his Twitter show. And

13:58

by then, you know, who knows?

13:59

if it's time for this trial balloon. It's

14:02

too late. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. We can't

14:04

jump in unless we're jumping in at the beginning. You

14:06

know what? That's stupid, but that is exactly how

14:08

I feel. Also, I mean, you're not

14:10

wrong. Also, I thought about it being stupid.

14:13

But also, I feel a little bit excited

14:15

about this, not least of which because this

14:18

is the first time in 800-odd

14:20

episodes where I genuinely can't say, I really

14:23

don't know anything about Tucker. I don't know anything about his

14:25

show. I don't know anything about what he does.

14:27

I try and avoid all of this as much

14:29

as possible. As you said, I have a thing for voices.

14:32

Anytime I hear it, I shut

14:34

it off. So this is true

14:36

to the original premise, Dan. Well,

14:38

I mean, that's exciting. Although you don't know everything

14:40

about Tucker. No. And if

14:42

I'm being perfectly honest, I didn't do

14:45

a ton of like, who is this man

14:47

in this?

14:47

But that's exploration

14:50

for future episodes. That's what I'm saying. If

14:52

we continue down this road. Man, maybe we

14:54

can get him a billion-dollar

14:56

shirt. Give it time.

15:00

We don't work fast. No, it takes

15:02

a while. There are results. We'll see you

15:05

in seven-plus years. Yeah. So

15:07

here is where the first episode jumps

15:10

off. And I will say I was pretty impressed by

15:12

how little time he has for pleasantries.

15:15

Hey, it's Tucker Carlson. This morning, it

15:17

looks like somebody blew up the Kolkov

15:19

Kedam in southern Ukraine.

15:22

The

15:22

rushing wall of water wiped out entire

15:24

villages, destroyed a critical hydropower

15:27

plant. And as of tonight, puts the

15:29

largest nuclear reactor in Europe

15:31

in danger of melting down. So

15:34

if this was intentional, it was not a

15:36

military tactic. It was an act

15:38

of terrorism. The question is,

15:40

who did it? Well, let's see. The

15:43

Kolkov Kedam was effectively Russian.

15:45

It was built by the Russian government. It

15:47

currently sits in the Russian control. Sorry. The

15:50

dam's reservoir supplies water to Crimea,

15:53

which has been for the last 240 years home of the Russian Black

15:57

Sea Fleet.

15:58

Blowing up the dam may be bad for the Ukraine,

16:00

but it hurts Russia more. And

16:03

for precisely that reason, the Ukrainian government

16:05

has considered destroying it. In

16:08

December, the Washington Post quoted a Ukrainian

16:10

general saying his men had fired American-made

16:13

rockets at the dam's floodgate

16:15

as a test strike. So

16:17

really, once the facts start coming in, it becomes

16:20

much less of a mystery what might have happened to the dam.

16:23

Any fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians

16:26

probably blew it up. Okay,

16:28

so that was quick. Okay,

16:31

so that's literally the way he opened. Yeah.

16:33

Hey, what's up? Damn exploded. It wasn't

16:36

the Russians. It totally wasn't Putin. Even

16:38

though we know that would be exactly right

16:40

up his wheelhouse, it makes strategic

16:43

sense for them militarily. We are off to the races,

16:45

just... Right, right. Hello, my name is Tucker.

16:47

Tada.

16:48

Dictators are great. Let's

16:50

go from there. So let's start here

16:52

with that Washington Post article that

16:55

he's talking about. That is a real

16:57

article, but Tucker is wildly mischaracterizing

16:59

what it says. The article itself is a discussion

17:02

of Ukrainian counter-offensives against

17:04

Russian-occupied areas, largely focusing

17:06

on the successful push to liberate Izhym.

17:09

After that operation concluded in the northeast

17:12

of the country, Ukrainian generals were interested

17:14

in attempting similar tactics in the south

17:17

to drive Russia out of Kursan. Essentially,

17:20

the story is about a fake-out tactic that allowed

17:22

Ukrainian forces to make it appear that they were heading

17:24

for Izhym when they were actually approaching

17:27

from the north, which led to a mass retreat by

17:29

Russian troops and a victory for Ukraine.

17:31

The hope was to be able to create another situation

17:34

near Kursan where Russian troops would

17:36

be isolated and forced to surrender

17:38

or retreat. The area around the

17:40

city of Kursan is mainland Ukraine,

17:43

bordered to the east by the Dnepur River.

17:46

On the other side of that river is

17:48

more of the Kursan Oblast, and

17:50

ways further south you end up in

17:53

the Crimean Peninsula. From

17:55

the opposite side of the river, from Kursan

17:57

to the land bridge to Crimea, It's

18:00

still over a hundred kilometers, but

18:02

this land is also at

18:04

this point under Russian occupation

18:06

Right right right for the last year so

18:09

like if I here's what here's what I

18:11

understand about it's hard to just

18:13

fully Like verbally explain

18:15

geography right all right that was about

18:17

as good as I can do right so from what I

18:20

understand of the damn Scenario

18:22

all right. It's been under Russian occupation

18:25

for quite some time

18:27

the last year right yeah That's quite some

18:29

time. I guess in my world. Yeah, all

18:31

right in the grand scale sure that's fair

18:33

You know I mean wartime a year

18:35

is a long time sure And

18:38

then they the seismic people

18:40

were like oh there was an explosion And it probably

18:42

came from inside

18:44

the Russians are inside and it's technically

18:46

really smart for them to blow up the dam Even

18:48

though that's a war crime So it kind of makes

18:50

sense for them to have done it and they did

18:52

do it there are a number of thoughts

18:55

around it And I would say that it's probably

18:57

at this point

18:58

Based on the information. I am aware

19:00

of yeah pretty difficult to say with certainty

19:03

yeah anything About who

19:05

did what but there are? indications

19:08

and factors And

19:11

so if that's a conclusion you're coming to I

19:13

think it's fine for you to reach that conclusion Yeah,

19:16

but I think it would be reckless of you to say definitively

19:20

That one side did it or not

19:22

fair like what I will say is that

19:24

I have just figured out blues clues How

19:27

does that sound great okay? So

19:30

the goal? Of this operation

19:32

that Ukraine was engaged in this Washington

19:35

Post was talking about was to cut off the

19:37

city of curse on from The area to the

19:39

western side of the river That

19:41

you know that that's where curse on the city

19:43

is you're trying to isolate that

19:46

from Russian occupied areas So

19:48

that the Russians couldn't restock supplies

19:51

To the forces there sure from that

19:53

article quote the 25,000

19:56

Russian troops in that portion of curse

19:58

on separated by the broad river

20:00

from their supplies had been placed in a highly

20:02

exposed position. If enough military

20:05

pressure was applied, Moscow would have no choice

20:07

but to retreat, Koval Czek said.

20:10

Russia had to arm and feed its forces via

20:13

three crossings, the Antonovsky

20:15

Bridge, the Antonovsky Railway Bridge,

20:18

and the Novakakovka

20:20

Dam, part of a hydroelectric facility

20:23

with a road

20:25

running on top of it. The two bridges were

20:27

targeted with US-supplied M142

20:30

High Mobility Artility Rocket

20:33

Systems, or HIMARS launchers,

20:36

which have a range of 50 miles and were quickly

20:38

rendered impassable. There were moments

20:40

when we turned off their supply lines completely

20:42

and they still managed to build

20:45

crossings, Koval Czek said. They managed

20:47

to replenish ammunition. It was very

20:49

difficult. Koval Czek considered

20:51

flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said,

20:54

even conducted a test strike with HIMARS

20:56

launchers on one of the floodgates

20:58

at the Novakovka

21:00

Dam, making three holes in

21:03

the metal to see if the Napewater

21:05

would be raised high enough to stymie Russian

21:07

crossings but not flood nearby

21:10

villages. The test was a success,

21:12

Koval Czek said, but the step remained a last

21:14

resort he held off. So

21:16

that is the thing in that article

21:19

that Tucker is referring to. One

21:21

variable that's important to recognize here is that

21:23

the Ukrainian forces were able to force

21:25

a retreat from the city of Kursan, but

21:27

that wasn't all that happened. From

21:29

that same Washington Post article, quote,

21:32

the pressure from Ukrainian troops forced a retreat,

21:34

but they didn't manage to run down

21:36

or destroy the fleeing Russians. Mines,

21:39

in some case, laid a meter apart and

21:42

three rows deep or tucked in thin strips

21:44

of road prevented the Ukrainians from giving chase.

21:47

There are a lot of possibilities for what happened with that

21:49

dam, and it's not a foregone conclusion

21:52

the way Tucker is saying it is. It's possible

21:54

that Ukrainian forces blew it up, but it doesn't

21:56

really serve a meaningful strategic purpose

21:59

for them right now. When flooding the dam

22:01

was considered an option late last year,

22:03

it was in the context of a larger objective which

22:05

was ultimately achieved. So using

22:07

this article to justify present-day actions

22:09

doesn't really make sense. It's

22:11

also possible that Russia blew it up for any number

22:14

of reasons, or it's not impossible

22:16

that it collapsed due to completely unintentional

22:18

causes. It could have been one of the mines

22:21

that was left behind or a freak accident.

22:23

There are a lot of possibilities.

22:25

But when you're Tucker and you're presenting

22:28

the situation through an extremely Russia-promoting

22:31

lens, then it makes sense to say

22:33

that any fair person would conclude that

22:35

the Ukrainians blew it up. Well, I mean

22:38

if your evidence is inherently

22:41

unfair,

22:42

then an unfair person wouldn't even

22:44

look at it. Whereas a fair person would be like, well, I guess

22:46

that's all the evidence, so you must be right.

22:49

Well, the only primary source he's even

22:51

like pointing to is this Washington Post article,

22:53

and that doesn't work.

22:55

Yeah, yep, yep. Okay.

22:58

One thing I think you can notice right away that sets

23:00

Tucker apart from Alex is how intentional

23:03

his words are. Alex talks shit

23:05

off the top of his head and intuitively

23:07

understands how to spin these yarns, which is

23:09

often a sloppy process and it can

23:11

lead to complete incoherence. But

23:13

Tucker doesn't turn on the camera and just

23:15

go live. He does some preparation

23:18

and the fingerprints of that preparation are really transparent

23:20

when you pay attention. Look at the way he's

23:22

presenting these details. He begins

23:25

by establishing the fact that the dam was intentionally

23:27

destroyed by someone and that that act

23:30

could not be a legitimate military target,

23:32

but was an act of terrorism. He that's

23:35

like he just he yeah, that's the framing of the

23:37

entire thing. Unearned. Yeah, well he starts by

23:39

saying if this was intentional

23:42

and then immediately without you even noticing

23:44

is like, of course, it's intentional.

23:46

Yeah, yeah, it's a framing device. It's good. Yeah,

23:49

it works. He then goes on to say that the dam

23:51

was quote effectively Russian because

23:53

it was built by the Russian government and sits in Russian

23:55

territory. That sounds pretty persuasive

23:58

except the Tucker fails to mention that the dam was built

24:00

in the 1950s when Ukraine was part of the USSR,

24:03

and that the territory that the dam is in

24:05

can only be called Russian territory because the Russian

24:08

army is occupying it. It's

24:10

been an illegally occupied area since the invasion

24:12

began in 2022. Tucker is trying to play that

24:15

game that other Russia apologists do,

24:17

where they argue that areas like Crimea

24:20

or the Donbass are actually really Russia,

24:22

evoking the idea that the invasion is just Russia

24:24

taking back what's actually already theirs.

24:27

That's not accurate about those areas, and it's even less

24:29

true

24:29

of Curzon, but if you're listening to the way

24:32

that Tucker speaks, his words contain

24:34

conclusions that he hasn't earned.

24:36

If you're not paying attention, you'll just

24:39

like, okay, yeah, that makes sense. And if you put it

24:41

in a different context, you go, well, that's

24:43

an absurd line of thinking, like, okay,

24:45

so

24:46

this guy sold you a house, and

24:48

then he just broke in and took the house

24:51

back and then threw you out, and you're like, well,

24:53

I mean, he built the house, so I guess it's

24:56

what are you gonna do?

24:57

So then Tucker adds that the dam and

24:59

the reservoir provides water for Crimea,

25:01

an area that Tucker is comfortable saying

25:04

is rightfully part of Russia because that's

25:06

where their Black Sea fleet is stationed.

25:08

That sounds good. Tucker isn't giving the full

25:10

picture here. In 2014,

25:12

Russia annexed Crimea, and at that point,

25:15

they needed the water that came from the Napa River

25:17

and the Kolkovka reservoir. It

25:20

wasn't as much of an issue for drinking water,

25:22

but the North Crimean Canal,

25:24

which is fed from that reservoir, is responsible

25:27

for a vast majority of the irrigation systems

25:29

in the area. After the annexation,

25:31

Ukraine began requiring payments from Russia

25:33

for the delivery of water, which Russia did

25:36

not go along with. Due to

25:38

their refusal to pay, Ukraine created another

25:40

dam that would block the flow of water to the

25:42

North Crimean channel. In the present

25:44

invasion, Russian troops seized the area and they

25:46

blew up that dam, reopening the canal

25:49

for the delivery of water, which in turn

25:51

lowered the level of the reservoir considerably

25:54

and caused some concerns

25:56

about issues that Tucker is even bringing up now, like

25:59

the danger to the to the

26:01

nuclear power plant. Right, right, right. So

26:03

like that was there too. Then when they

26:05

did that to open up the water to

26:07

the channel

26:08

and I don't know. So you're saying that

26:11

Russia has already blown up a dam? Well,

26:14

it is the same, but

26:16

it is a little different too. You

26:18

know, there are different reasons you would

26:21

do these things. Sure, sure. Just because

26:23

they're both dams doesn't mean they're the exact

26:25

same situation. No, no, no, I'm not saying

26:27

that they're the same situation. I'm just saying that if

26:29

you have a group of people who have already

26:31

blown up a dam, will

26:34

get strategic value out of it, have

26:37

evidence of being there and were in control

26:39

of the dam at the time. Hey, I mean. There's

26:41

a lot of evidence mounting. I'm not saying that

26:44

there aren't interesting factors, but

26:47

it's not a smoking gun. It's not a

26:49

smoking gun, nor am I saying it is. So here

26:51

when Tucker says that this provides water for

26:54

Crimea, it's kind of true, but it's actually a

26:56

much denser picture than he wants the audience to

26:58

see, because when you consider nuance and

27:00

detail, it's harder to just accept the Russian

27:02

apologist framing that he's taking.

27:05

So then Tucker says, quote, blowing up

27:08

the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts

27:10

Russia more. And for precisely that reason,

27:12

the Ukrainian government has considered destroying

27:15

it. He then transitions into the Washington

27:17

Post article that we discussed as the justification

27:20

for the basis of that claim. But that

27:22

article doesn't support Tucker's position. That

27:24

article is not about Ukraine considering destroying

27:27

the dam because it would hurt Russia more than them. It

27:30

has an element in it of Ukraine considering

27:32

destroying part of the dam, and Tucker is

27:34

writing his own story about why and

27:37

using that for his own purposes. It's pretty

27:39

similar behavior that you see with Alex. Basically

27:42

what you're doing is abusing a primary source.

27:45

Alex usually uses rewritten headlines,

27:48

but in this case, Tucker is just cherry

27:50

picking one detail and then

27:52

writing a context around it that

27:54

doesn't exist in the original. No, it's very

27:57

clear, literally from clip one.

27:59

that this is a slicker

28:02

version of Alex's show. Yeah, but it also

28:04

gets less slick as it goes along. Well, that

28:06

I also believe. Yeah. But I mean,

28:09

just from the writing, the fact that he's

28:11

using the local TV news voice, you

28:13

know, like inside and then

28:15

outside, they go to the thing.

28:18

Yeah. Like he does the whole produced

28:20

vibe of it, but it is still grabbing

28:23

and choosing things and misrepresenting

28:26

them. And there's rhetorical tricks that he uses

28:28

that Alex doesn't use.

28:29

And vice versa. Alex uses

28:32

screaming and fake crying and stuff like that, which

28:34

Tucker is probably maybe

28:36

too proud to do at this point. A couple months

28:39

away from doing at this point. Whereas Tucker

28:41

uses these tricks that Alex doesn't use, which

28:43

is like

28:44

any fair person

28:46

would say blank. Is

28:49

it so impossible that blank? That

28:52

kind of leading stuff. Yeah, his

28:54

rhetorical tricks. Alex would not be able to

28:56

really pull that off because it requires

28:59

subtlety and smoothness. Whereas Alex is a blunt

29:02

instrument. Well, I mean, what I find fascinating

29:04

about that is that I think the easiest

29:06

place to assume that you would come

29:09

to that from if you were Tucker is being like,

29:11

oh, well, he's trying to appeal to more

29:14

a median class

29:14

or like more moderate

29:17

people. When I feel like

29:19

what he's doing there is just giving extreme

29:21

people a way to call themselves

29:23

fair people. Do you know what I mean? Like

29:25

he is giving you the excuse to say,

29:28

no, no, no, no, no, you are not supporting Russia because

29:31

you're a far right lunatic like everybody

29:33

else who's just going along with what weirdos say.

29:35

You're a fair minded person. And

29:38

you'd have to be based on the blah, blah, blah. Exactly.

29:41

Yeah. Yes. Yeah, there's

29:43

a number of applications for why

29:45

this rhetoric would be employed in

29:47

the way that it is. Yeah. So

29:49

Tucker has these fraudulently presented points,

29:52

which he then uses to insinuate that when

29:54

you consider the facts, it's a lot easier

29:56

to see the Ukraine probably blew up the dam. The

29:58

truth is when you consider the... It's not

30:00

easy to reach that conclusion. But, if

30:03

you only consider the bullshit way Tucker is showing

30:05

you the selected details, it's super

30:07

easy to reach that conclusion. And that's because

30:09

Tucker isn't interested in exploring the news. This

30:12

is about leading the viewer to that conclusion. And

30:14

like you're saying, justify it in some way that

30:16

is emotionally acceptable. This isn't

30:19

analysis or commentary, it's really just propaganda.

30:23

It's pretty interesting, you know, to just dive

30:25

in and be like, this is this guy. This guy

30:28

is different. I mean, now that I'm... It's the same,

30:30

but different.

30:30

Yeah, no, now that I'm listening to it, it is like

30:33

the idea of watching Alex and Tucker,

30:36

because they do. You know, they do watch it.

30:38

They don't just watch InfoWars. Alex talks

30:40

about Tucker all the time. Everybody knows what

30:42

Tucker and Alex are saying in that ecosystem.

30:45

They text all the time, apparently? Totally.

30:48

There's got to be a point, there's got to be like a

30:50

feeling of Alex gives you

30:52

the like, no, I'm the revolutionary, I'm part

30:55

of the American Revolution. I'm throwing tea off

30:57

shit. Whereas Tucker gives you that

30:59

feeling of like, I'm not crazy.

31:01

This is of course what is right to do.

31:04

I'm a fair-minded person. Yeah. Like

31:07

that's a fascinating thing. Sure, sure.

31:10

And I would be lying if I didn't say that a part

31:13

of what drew me towards

31:16

giving this a test, seeing if, you

31:18

know, this is something that's worthwhile is that you

31:20

hear a lot of people saying like, now

31:22

that he's off Fox, he's gone full InfoWars.

31:25

Sure, sure, sure, sure. And such. And like,

31:27

okay, well, I'm maybe one

31:29

of the people as the most familiarity with InfoWars in the

31:31

world. Let's see if that is the case. Yeah,

31:34

nobody is more prepared to give you a ruling

31:37

on that question. And so

31:39

far, I think based on one episode,

31:41

I don't know. But like based on that, yes and

31:43

no. Yeah. There are a lot of similarities.

31:46

Yeah. And then there's a lot of stuff

31:48

that's like, but I think a lot of things that are those

31:50

primary differences often come

31:52

down to some, some

31:54

aesthetic and tactical kind

31:57

of kind of ideas. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

31:59

It feels like it depends on what fucking

32:03

hat you're wearing. Yeah. And neither

32:05

of these guys wear hats. They don't wear good hats. Not

32:07

on air. Alex, when he's off air, always

32:09

wears a 10 gallon hat. Oh, that's too big.

32:12

Always wears cowboy hat. That's eight gallons,

32:14

plenty. The Texan. Eight gallons are plenty

32:17

for everybody. You don't need 10 gallons. Well, there's

32:19

a water crisis. Yeah, Tucker wears a two

32:21

gallon hat. Oh, that's too... Two

32:23

pint hat. Yeah. So

32:26

not only did Ukraine blow up the dam,

32:29

they also blew up the Nord

32:29

Stream pipeline. Mm. Any fair person

32:32

would conclude that the Ukrainians probably

32:35

blew it up, just as you would assume they

32:37

blew up Nord Stream, the Russian natural gas

32:39

pipeline last fall.

32:41

And in fact, the Ukrainians did do that,

32:43

as we now know. It's not like Vladimir

32:45

Putin is anxious to wage war on himself.

32:48

Oh, but that's where you're wrong, Mr. and Mrs.

32:50

Cable News Consumer. Vladimir

32:53

Putin is exactly that sort

32:55

of man, the sort of man who'd shoot himself to

32:57

death in order to annoy you.

32:59

We know this from the American media,

33:01

which wasted no time this morning in accusing

33:03

the Russians of sabotaging

33:05

their own infrastructure.

33:07

So Tucker can't prove that Ukraine attacked the

33:09

Nord Stream pipeline. That being said, there's

33:11

a distinct possibility that it is the case, that

33:14

either a group sympathetic to Ukraine or Ukrainian

33:16

special tactics team did do it. It's possible.

33:19

Sure. Tucker is claiming that it's definitively the case,

33:21

which he can't back up. Last month,

33:24

a bunch of classified documents were leaked on Discord,

33:27

including one that indicated that the CIA was

33:29

aware that Ukraine had plans to blow up the pipeline

33:32

approximately three months before that attack

33:34

took place. Okay. It's entirely possible

33:36

that this plan was what came to fruition,

33:39

but it's also possible that it's not. Yeah.

33:43

The person who leaked that information was a

33:45

21-year-old man named Jack Tashara, who has

33:47

now been arrested for the leak. While

33:49

you shouldn't necessarily throw out a message because

33:51

it comes from a shitty messenger, it's

33:54

probably important to be aware that Jack was

33:56

described by a friend as a proud racist who

33:58

was preoccupied with the idea of a common... race

34:00

war. He was a bigot who talked about

34:02

how the government was a Zionist occupied

34:04

government and he liked

34:06

to hang out with like-minded young people

34:08

so he started a Discord server called Thug

34:11

Shaker Central. Jack worked

34:14

in computer science for the government and through that

34:16

he had access to this classified material which he

34:18

then posted on his racist Discord

34:20

server. Also in that server he

34:22

would laugh while watching ISIS execution videos

34:25

and express his support about the Christchurch massacre.

34:28

I'm bringing this up because Jack Treshera is clearly

34:30

a piece of shit but that does not necessarily

34:33

mean that the document that he's leaked is

34:35

fake. What it does mean is

34:37

that I'm not willing to trust this racist right-wing

34:39

extremist judgment when it comes to leaking

34:41

documents that capture the full picture of

34:44

the available intelligence. Someone

34:46

like this is clearly intensely ideologically

34:48

motivated and that makes it very difficult

34:50

to take on blind faith that there isn't another

34:52

document that casts doubt on Ukrainian responsibility

34:55

for the pipeline attack that he ignored

34:57

or didn't release. That

34:59

is a real

34:59

difficulty when you have someone like this as

35:02

the person who's providing the secret

35:04

material. The material

35:07

itself could be totally real. No, their

35:09

point of view is what limits the value

35:12

of the- As a leaker.

35:14

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, well, you can't- okay,

35:16

you are a person who is known

35:19

for, maybe above all else, choosing

35:22

and picking what things you want to believe

35:24

are true and share with other people at

35:26

the exclusion of things that may

35:28

be completely

35:29

destructive towards that. So

35:32

yeah, I don't think I would take you first.

35:35

Yeah. Yeah. So

35:37

I have some tentative issues

35:40

with this that, you know, hey, that document,

35:43

I believe it's real and entirely

35:45

could be indicative of the plan that was

35:47

carried out

35:48

but I suspend a little bit of judgment in terms

35:51

of making a definitive conclusion. I

35:53

mean, and also I have a big- the biggest

35:55

problem I have with all of these like, oh,

35:58

this place has plans to do this.

35:59

I bet 50 bucks that some

36:02

American people have plans to blow up

36:04

shit. I bet every country

36:06

everywhere has

36:07

plans to blow up something that if you were like, hey,

36:09

you shouldn't have plans to blow it up, and they'd be like, no, we

36:11

were just making plans in case.

36:13

You know? That's true. Some of the context

36:15

is important. Yeah, absolutely.

36:18

So Tucker mocks there that, you

36:20

know, the idea that Putin would hurt

36:22

himself just to annoy you, or whatever.

36:25

Much like Alex, Tucker used to be a huge opponent

36:28

of Putin and Russia. Yeah. As

36:30

with Alex, it would not be a surprise to find him being

36:32

an inherent of the belief that Putin carried out the

36:34

apartment bombings back at that point in time before

36:37

Tucker became excessively pro-Putin. Right.

36:40

It's really interesting to see Tucker denigrating the cable

36:42

news watcher here, too, in that clip. He's

36:45

on his first day of his career not being

36:47

a cable news hack, and all of a sudden, he's

36:49

so above the riffraff. It feels

36:52

like an adolescent who's found a new friend group

36:54

and is pretending he was never a dork. I

36:56

get the motivation here, but it's kind of sad. Like,

36:58

Tucker didn't decide to strike out on his own when

37:00

he had another choice. He's doing this

37:03

show because he got fired from a cable news

37:05

hack position where he made millions

37:07

for years. It's not like, oh, oh, the

37:10

cable news media wants

37:12

you, the cable news of you, or

37:14

to believe that Putin wants to annoy you.

37:17

Grow up. Listen, person

37:19

who's watched me on cable news for

37:21

20-plus years, watching

37:24

cable news is stupid. Yeah. Way

37:27

to go. So anyway,

37:29

also...

37:29

So what have you been doing for the past 20 years, Tucker? Just

37:31

a real quick question. Follow

37:34

up with me whenever you have time. Backpacking, throw

37:37

your up. Cable news viewer is stupid.

37:39

I'm a person who's watched you on cable news for 20 years. So

37:41

what have you been doing for 20 years? I

37:43

was on a sabbatical researching Botaz. That's

37:46

a really good idea. Are they coming back?

37:48

No. So Tucker's saying that Russia

37:50

had no reason to attack

37:53

themselves. Oh, my God. But he's also really

37:55

comfortable saying that other things are false flags.

37:58

It just feels disingenuous.

37:59

to like have false flag

38:02

within your vocabulary and then

38:04

be like what kind of fool would false

38:06

flag themselves what an idiot

38:09

what kind of moron would engage in

38:11

false flaggery and and obviously

38:14

there's false flags that happen all the time

38:16

and I think that that dynamic that you're playing

38:18

with there is exactly why it's important to

38:21

realize that like false flag accusations

38:23

aren't sincere no it's a tactical

38:26

rhetorical thing that people

38:28

like Alex and Tucker

38:29

use to sidestep

38:32

and excuse and make excuses for

38:34

the people that they want to support when they

38:36

do atrocious things yeah a false flag

38:39

accusation might as well be a smoke bomb yeah it might

38:41

as well be a boom okay now we can't

38:43

see what it is we're exactly talking about

38:45

I don't feel like I can afford

38:48

to accept that that's real yeah

38:50

without limiting my support for the

38:52

people who are bad that I want to so totally

38:54

if I agree with you I have to change

38:57

that is what you should say or

38:59

at very least

39:02

if I agree with you I don't

39:04

have an argument not to try right if

39:07

I agree with you then I can only either

39:09

say I am 100% totally fine with murdering

39:12

innocent people or mm-hmm

39:16

I'm gonna have to do a lot

39:18

different with my life yeah that's not good

39:20

so Tucker

39:22

talks a little bit of shit here and then I

39:25

just I found this to be

39:28

fascinating the way that he

39:30

talks Bill Crystal the

39:32

man who once told us that Saddam Hussein

39:34

was responsible for 9-11 immediately

39:37

denounced Putin not my giant

39:39

even more savagely compared him to Donald

39:41

Trump the rest of the pundit

39:43

class made similar clearly coordinated

39:46

noises potent edit potent

39:48

edit and the reasoning

39:50

was simple potent is evil

39:52

and evil people do evil things

39:54

purely for the dark joy of being evil

39:58

in this specific case

39:59

attacked himself, which is the most

40:02

evil thing you can do,

40:03

and therefore perfectly in character for

40:05

a man that evil. That

40:08

was their explanation. It feels like he's talking

40:10

to children. Wait. Attacking

40:12

oneself is the... Most

40:15

evil thing you can do? What? Mom. Okay. I

40:17

guess. All right. That's...

40:20

Is that what you were writing down in the notes? No, no, no,

40:22

no. I was just writing down that,

40:25

like, the idea of a bunch of people

40:27

agreeing that something happened, because that's

40:29

probably how it happened, is coordination. You

40:32

know, like, not consensus, or

40:34

not like, with the information

40:36

available, this is the conclusion that we have drawn. It's

40:38

coordinated... Oh,

40:41

we've all talked, and this is the story we're going with. Sure,

40:44

man. You know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. The

40:47

carrier pigeons go out and tell you... Yeah, yeah, yeah.

40:49

...these

40:49

are your lines. Totally. So I don't

40:51

know if Bill Kristol actually ever said that Saddam

40:53

was responsible for 9-11, but I'll stipulate

40:56

that it is true, because I don't really care, and

40:58

I don't have time to read through 100 Bill Kristol

41:00

transcripts to find his comments. Do you know

41:02

what he said about Bin Laden? Mmm...

41:06

I can't come up with a Billie Kristol joke. He's

41:09

only mostly dead. Okay. Even

41:12

if that is a real statement that Bill Kristol

41:15

made, I would argue that Tucker Carlson's

41:17

career at Crossfire did way more damage,

41:19

and was way more inaccurate, just

41:21

around the issues related to Saddam Hussein. The

41:24

war in Iraq didn't happen because someone

41:26

like Kristol said that Saddam did 9-11. It

41:29

was sold to the public largely on the rationale

41:31

that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Because

41:34

he had WMDs and harbored terrorists,

41:36

we could not just wait and see how things went.

41:39

We needed to take action. Tucker

41:41

sold the war on CNN. Tucker

41:43

argued day in and day out that he didn't support

41:45

war, but that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,

41:48

and we needed to begrudgingly invade.

41:51

He can try to play this rogue-ish character

41:53

that's so different from the Republican establishment, but

41:55

his career was built on being complicit in

41:57

their greatest blunders. Also,

41:59

on another note, On a number of occasions, Tucker came right

42:02

up to the line of saying that Iraq was directly

42:04

involved at 9-11. For instance,

42:06

on the September 25, 2002 episode of Crossfire, he said this, Quote,

42:12

More hints today that there's some kind of a link between

42:14

Iraq and Al-Qaeda. At a NATO conference

42:16

in Poland, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

42:19

told reporters that Washington has evidence

42:21

linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda. He says

42:23

he presented the evidence to other NATO defense

42:25

ministers. So far, however, most

42:28

Democrats are dismissive of the evidence, presumably

42:30

because Democratic campaign hacks

42:32

believe they have better access to classified intelligence

42:34

information than the Secretary of Defense.

42:38

Yeah. I really

42:40

love how we don't remember

42:43

anything. We

42:45

just don't do it. As a society,

42:48

we're just like,

42:49

yeah,

42:52

if we talk about that

42:54

and hold people responsible for

42:56

it, we're gonna have to change. I feel like

42:58

this is the situation that we keep coming

43:00

up against is like, if I acknowledge that

43:02

the reality is what it is, I'm going to

43:04

have to do something different. And so I just refuse

43:07

to acknowledge it. But I think a lot of people are willing

43:09

to recognize those things and want that change.

43:12

Totally. And just don't find

43:14

ourselves in a position where we're disempowered. We're just trapped.

43:17

What are we supposed to do? He shouldn't be there. What

43:19

am I supposed to say? It's hard. So more startlingly,

43:22

I think. This is fucking baby talk. What he's doing.

43:24

This is nonsense. That legitimately sounds like

43:26

he's talking to middle schoolers, but what he's saying does

43:29

somewhat line up with Alex's explanation of

43:31

the globalists. They're

43:33

evil. They do false flags because they're

43:36

evil and they just delight in being evil. So it's interesting

43:38

to see Tucker mock this mentality in what he views as the cable

43:40

news class who aren't actually saying this. And

43:43

yet he aligns himself with Alex, who is saying that. He's

43:46

saying that. Right. Weird.

43:50

Right. And just because it's fun. Here's

43:52

a clip of Tucker on C-SPAN from 1999. This was back when he worked

43:54

for a

43:55

Bill

44:00

Crystal at the Weekly Standard. Damn

44:29

that caller sounds like present day Tucker time

44:31

traveled back to Skuld himself.

44:33

That is so wild. That

44:35

is so wild. I don't

44:38

like time. I don't like its existence.

44:40

I don't like the fact that I've had to experience

44:43

it. I know that

44:45

four dimensional space is fucking

44:48

set in stone. There's no changing the

44:50

future or the past. It all happened simultaneously.

44:53

And this disgusts me sir. Yeah

44:56

whatever happened happened. Oh my god. Except

44:58

for Tucker is able to time travel and go back to Skuld

45:01

his bow tie wearing ass on C-Spam.

45:03

That's oh. Yeah

45:05

I listened to that and I was like oh my god that

45:07

is such an interesting parallel

45:10

to the present. Yeah that's fucked up.

45:12

Yeah. That really fucks with my head. Right

45:14

I mean you just take the establishment

45:17

GOP

45:18

and replace Buchanan

45:21

with Trump. Yeah. And it's so

45:23

much. I mean it's disgusting.

45:26

It's just disgusting. It's

45:29

just I'm supposed to know. Here's

45:32

the problem. The problem is

45:34

that fiction lies to us. It's not real.

45:37

Because in fiction people grow.

45:39

That's the whole idea. That's the whole idea

45:41

of the hero's journey. You meet conflict.

45:44

You overcome it. You are changed.

45:46

And then things go on. But not

45:49

in real life. There's no hero's journey.

45:52

There's just somebody who beats

45:52

something and then random shit happens

45:55

and then people allow them to keep doing it again. Well

45:57

think about it as a villain's journey though.

45:59

No consequences. Well, Tucker's

46:02

laughing at this caller scolding

46:04

him on C-SPAN, and

46:06

then over time, through progressive,

46:09

you know, just deterioration of

46:11

his, uh, any integrity

46:13

that may or may not have been there

46:16

in 1999, he ends up becoming that caller.

46:19

Basically. Yeah, that is so weird.

46:22

It is. That is so weird. It is. So

46:25

no one, no one is saying

46:28

that the damn situation

46:30

could be Ukraine. And that's not true. No.

46:32

A lot of people are saying we don't know. Yeah.

46:35

You're saying that. Yeah, sure. And a lot of

46:37

the news sources that I was reading were like, yeah,

46:39

Ukraine blames Russia, Russia blames Ukraine. Where

46:42

it's a war. Yeah. That's how it goes. It's kind

46:44

of unclear at this point. There's reasons to believe

46:46

either side could have. It's a war. But anyway,

46:49

no one is saying that it's Ukraine.

46:51

No one who's paid to cover these things seemed to entertain

46:54

even the possibility it could be Ukraine. Are you paid to cover?

46:56

Ukrainians who did it, no chance of that.

46:59

Ukraine, as you may have heard, is led by a man

47:01

called Zelensky.

47:03

And we can say for a dead certain fact that

47:05

he was not involved. He couldn't have been. Zelensky

47:08

is too decent for terrorism.

47:11

Now you see him on television. That's true. You might

47:13

form a different impression.

47:14

Sweaty and rat-like. A

47:16

comedian turned oligarch. A persecutor

47:19

of Christians. A friend of BlackRock.

47:22

But don't believe your own eyes. Damn. A

47:25

friend to BlackRock. So like

47:27

I said, every news article that I've

47:29

seen about the damn situation has said that

47:32

Ukraine points the finger at Russia and that Russia blames

47:34

Ukraine. And then no one knows for sure. Further,

47:36

all of the mainstream media outlets have covered

47:39

the leaked document that came from the racist Discord

47:41

server that showed Ukrainian planning involving

47:44

attacking the pipeline and Tucker's

47:46

only primary source that he's brought

47:49

up at all that had

47:51

to do. Only primary source at all. But

47:53

it also was to do with that Ukrainian military

47:55

figure considering flooding the dam at the end

47:57

of 2022 came from the Washington.

48:00

Post so like what are

48:02

you talking about? People paid to cover

48:05

this dumb thing that are so stupid

48:07

anyways the Washington Post I rely

48:09

on their cover All right Yeah, the mainstream media

48:11

isn't all marching and lockstep saying the Putin

48:13

did this but people like Tucker and Alex like

48:16

to create that image for their audience Because

48:19

you know It's a cheap trick that they can use

48:21

to make themselves seem like Econoclastic

48:23

voices like the only ones brave enough to think for

48:25

themselves while everyone else is a sheep

48:27

on autopilot again You've been working

48:29

for cable news for 20 plus

48:31

years. Yeah bowtie Jesus Tucker is using

48:34

some interesting language to describe Zielinski

48:36

there And it's not language that was missed by

48:38

flagrant anti-semite Oh, yeah, like Andrew

48:41

Anglin the guy who runs the daily stormer

48:43

somebody who? Looks

48:46

rat-faced Yeah, and persecutes

48:49

Christians so Andrew Anglin

48:51

wrote a review of Tucker's first episode

48:53

And he said quote I did like that. He called him

48:56

a rat like persecutor of Christians That's

48:58

good Tucker was

48:59

playing to his Nazi audience and

49:02

they heard him loud and clear Yeah, that's not what that

49:04

one wasn't hard to miss that

49:06

one wasn't hard to miss. That's the most

49:08

anti-semitic thing. I've heard

49:10

Recently yeah, yeah pretty

49:12

pretty Yeah,

49:16

and so he's allowed to do that yeah apparently

49:18

on Twitter flies, okay, and I mean

49:20

it doesn't stop there either really Actually,

49:23

mr. Zelensky is a very good man the

49:25

best really as George W Bush

49:28

once noted he is our generations

49:30

Winston Churchill of all

49:32

the people in the world are shifty dead-eyed

49:35

Ukrainian friends I'm sorry is

49:37

uniquely incapable of blowing up a dam.

49:39

I'm sorry He's literally a living saint

49:42

a man in whom there is no sin. It's

49:44

pretty grim stuff It's really hard

49:46

to listen to Tucker's smug baby talk media

49:49

criticism and not feel condescended to yeah

49:51

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could really

49:53

listen to or watch this shit unless they

49:56

were already in pretty deep in Believing

49:58

him like if you're actively listening

49:59

to what he's saying, this would be annoying and

50:02

insulting to the point where I would just turn it

50:04

off. Yeah, dude, people not get that he's being

50:06

very mean to them? He's a dick. He's an

50:08

asshole. Like, this is not the way you talk

50:11

to

50:11

a human being that you're an equal to. No. That's

50:13

for fucking sure. No, no, no. It is very, very

50:15

patronizing. That's weird. And people

50:17

choose to be patronized to in an

50:19

almost comforting way. Fascinating.

50:22

I could see it being somewhat comforting if that's what you're

50:24

looking for. Fascinating. Fascinating. Some more fun

50:26

attacks on Zelensky there. Sure. Interestingly,

50:29

in Andrew Anglin's review, he also

50:31

says this, quote, he used my

50:33

shifty and dead-eyed line. Not

50:36

only is Anglin happy about Tucker calling

50:38

Ukraine's Jewish president shifty and dead-eyed,

50:41

he's taking credit for being where Tucker

50:43

got it from. Yeah. So along with that

50:45

Washington Post article, it looks like we found a second

50:47

primary source Tucker is working from, the

50:50

Nazi head of the Daily Stormer. Yeah. Yeah.

50:52

So that's fun. People should be real

50:55

not happy with Tucker. Well,

50:59

everyone except for the Nazi folk. It seems that

51:01

way. Yeah. Yeah. It seems like

51:03

he's got the Nazi folk on lockdown, a knockdown.

51:07

So Tucker plays a short clip

51:09

of Zelensky talking

51:12

to Lindsey Graham. Sure. And they're talking

51:14

essentially about how they've

51:17

killed Russian soldiers. And Lindsey

51:19

Graham makes a joke about it's the best money

51:22

we've ever spent, or something like that, about the investment

51:24

in defending Ukraine. Right. It's a little tacky,

51:26

perhaps. Yeah. Yeah. But for Lindsey

51:29

Graham? Yeah. But Tucker has some

51:31

interesting perspective. See,

51:34

there's nothing dark here. Just two middle-aged

51:36

guys celebrating the killing of a population.

51:39

They don't seem like the kind of people who'd enjoy flooding

51:42

villages or starting a famine. And

51:44

in any case, who cares if they are?

51:47

It's really not your business. Your job

51:49

is to support Ukraine. Watch

51:52

Nikki Haley, a Republican candidate for president,

51:54

explain this principle on CNN. A

51:57

win for Ukraine is a win for the United

51:59

States. for all of us and for them to sit there

52:01

and say that this is a territorial dispute.

52:04

That's just not the case. To say that we should

52:06

stay neutral, it is in the best interest

52:09

of America. It's in the best interest of

52:11

our national security for Ukraine

52:13

to win. We have to see this through. We have

52:15

to finish it.

52:16

See? It's very

52:19

easy to understand. It is

52:21

vitally important for you to support

52:23

Ukraine because it's necessary for Ukraine

52:26

to be supported by you.

52:28

Your support is mandatory until

52:30

it's finished, whatever it is,

52:32

and whatever that means. So shut up and

52:34

support Ukraine or else you're in trouble. Nikki

52:37

Haley didn't say that. I didn't

52:39

hear her say that. No. If

52:41

I had heard her say that,

52:42

I would have let you know. Yeah. She was saying that it's

52:44

in the US's national interest for Ukraine

52:47

to come out victorious. Tucker isn't responding

52:49

to what she said. He's responding to what

52:51

it feels like she said. If you only

52:53

watch trash shows like Tucker's. Right. That's

52:57

intentional. So Zelensky and Lindsey Graham being happy about

52:59

Russian soldiers dying is fucked up in some ways,

53:01

but it's not really impossible to understand.

53:04

Does Tucker think that Putin is solemnly

53:06

lighting a candle and saying a devout prayer

53:08

for every Ukrainian soldier his troops kill?

53:10

Like you'd hope that everyone

53:12

would constantly stay aware of people's humanity,

53:14

but it's a war. It's a war where Zelensky's

53:17

country was invaded. You can understand

53:19

someone in that position not being the most precious

53:21

about lives. None of what they

53:23

said makes it any more or less likely that they blew

53:26

up the dam, but this is a fun game for

53:28

Tucker because it's a shortcut

53:30

for him to present Zelensky as a bad person.

53:33

So then he can say, doesn't it seem like he's

53:35

the sort of person who would blow up that damn? Even

53:38

if you buy the premise that he's a bad person, it doesn't

53:40

follow that this indicates that he's willing to blow

53:42

up

53:42

a dam to, you know,

53:45

somebody else. I think,

53:47

I think the simplest thing about this

53:49

that is being distracted away

53:52

from by Tucker is the idea that there

53:54

are militaries and countries involved,

53:57

you know, like by turning this into a

53:59

popular.

53:59

contest between do you like Putin

54:02

or do you like Zelensky? Or this sweaty

54:04

guy. Totally, yeah, yeah, yeah. Do

54:07

you pass, who do you pass a note to in eighth

54:09

grade? You know, like it's that fucking shit. As

54:11

opposed to being like- It is sort of retreating to

54:14

almost like a gossipy level. Totally, 100%. It's

54:17

removing the reality of fucking,

54:20

not just that, not just that. But I

54:23

wanna say this to Tucker. Oh. Right

54:25

away. Oh boy. The only thing

54:27

that they do not let Zelensky do is

54:30

have any say in any of the war shit. He's

54:33

there to get money. That's what he's for.

54:35

And he's great at it. He's a comedian and an actor.

54:38

He does not know anything about military

54:40

tactics. So of course they don't. Let me

54:42

take a step back and say, in addition

54:44

to that, he's also very

54:47

effective at

54:49

raising the morale of the country. He

54:53

is a

54:54

great leader in that respect. If you

54:56

wanted a president for

54:59

this with what kind of training,

55:01

it wouldn't be like a great military

55:04

leader or a great administrator. It'd be somebody

55:06

who can fucking rally people

55:08

and they nailed it. Yeah.

55:11

Yeah. So the game

55:13

that Tucker is playing there with the,

55:16

he's a bad person, so maybe he would blow up a dam. Alex

55:18

engages in that kind of thing a lot. There's

55:20

a whole genre of conspiracy theory where the

55:22

person making the claim has no evidence

55:24

of anything, but to make the narrative stick, you

55:26

just hang it on insinuations that

55:28

aren't the bad guys capable of doing this

55:30

bad thing. And so that's one

55:33

of the things I'm trying to

55:34

focus on as I was going through this, is

55:36

the similarities and differences between Alex

55:39

and this. Totally. And that

55:41

is a big thing in Alex's world.

55:45

Klaus Schwab's a bad guy, so of course he would

55:47

want you to be imprisoned in

55:49

your apartment and eat bugs. Yeah. Yeah,

55:51

all right, I don't know. Yeah, the

55:53

reductiveness is so fucking

55:55

weird. But that's the baby talk shit. No,

55:58

I know. That's what it is.

55:59

like oh so the

56:03

to me what I'm hearing is the focus is

56:05

like let's take extremely complicated

56:07

events boil them down to

56:09

a popularity contest and then you

56:11

choose which one you like more guess who I'm gonna tell

56:13

you to choose boot and and

56:15

that's it um

56:17

maybe a maybe a little bit of that

56:19

and then but the popularity contest

56:22

is also like presented as

56:25

also it's not just these

56:27

popular this is also right sure sure sure yeah

56:29

yeah yeah it's I don't know it's

56:32

I think I think I need to see a bit

56:35

more of this before I can like really

56:37

have a feel for Tucker but like there's

56:41

the reductive is a good way to put it yeah

56:43

yeah reductive for sure so

56:45

we got another pot kettle situation with Tucker's

56:47

comments about Nikki Haley to back

56:49

when he was a bow tie wearing little boy Tucker

56:51

spent a fair amount of his time scolding people who

56:53

didn't support the war in Iraq and had

56:56

a position that it was mandatory

56:58

for instance here's Tucker from a January

57:01

21st 2003 episode of Crossfire quote

57:04

France's foreign minister has been swaggering

57:06

around the UN lately boasting that his country

57:09

will never support American war plans regardless

57:11

of the evidence against Saddam Hussein asked

57:14

about our so-called allies reluctance to stand

57:16

up to evil dictators a clearly frustrated

57:18

president Bush told reporters surely

57:20

our friends have learned lessons from the past on

57:23

the other hand maybe they haven't as

57:25

one by one its former colonies have descended

57:27

into chaos and misery France has looked away

57:30

when a war broke out in the middle of Europe during the 1990s

57:33

France yawned when the United States

57:35

which twice saved France from a German-speaking

57:38

future attempts to disarm

57:39

one of the world's most dangerous lunatics France

57:42

howls fair enough let's invade

57:44

Iraq just to annoy France

57:47

what a child how

57:49

does everybody how has he gotten away with the

57:51

stick for so long he's a little whiny

57:53

baby

57:53

there's some something to that Wow

57:56

on that same episode Tucker was talking to an anti-war

57:58

activist and made the point that there was a whole lot

58:00

of wars going on in the world, but they were focused

58:03

on the war in Iraq, saying, quote, I must

58:05

say the anti-war movement seems like an anti-America

58:08

movement to me. We've

58:10

been there before. Yep. Tucker's

58:12

political position was that the war in Iraq

58:15

was in the US's best interest, so he

58:17

went about deriding people who didn't agree

58:19

with him. Right. What Nikki Haley said wasn't

58:21

even as explicit or extreme as the line

58:23

that Tucker took in the past, but he appears

58:25

to be responding essentially to what

58:28

he would say. Yeah. As opposed

58:30

to what Haley did say. Yeah,

58:32

I'm interested to see Tucker

58:35

essentially call

58:37

everybody stupid for doing

58:39

the thing that he did for 25 years. It

58:42

seems like a lot of this. Yeah. So hypocrisy

58:44

doesn't matter, and I'm not trying to score points on that

58:46

or anything. Of course not. But there's a dynamic that I think

58:48

is pretty worth noting there. Tucker's

58:51

response to Haley's comments don't really make sense

58:53

based on her actual comments. She didn't

58:55

say that it was mandatory to support Ukraine and didn't

58:58

say you needed to support them because they needed your

59:00

support. Tucker's commentary is far more

59:02

suited to be the response to something that he

59:04

would say. He is and has been

59:07

the sort of commentator who would say the thing

59:09

that he's attributing to Haley, and so he's

59:11

responding in kind. Right. There's

59:13

kind of a weird dynamic there that's very similar

59:15

to Alex's, like the globalist

59:18

plans are what I would do. Right, right, right,

59:20

exactly. That kind of projection

59:22

of your own shitiness onto

59:24

the mind of the person you're commenting

59:27

on. If I was trying to sell this war, I

59:29

would sell it like this the way that I

59:31

did. Yeah, and look, I don't

59:33

know everything that Nikki Haley has

59:35

ever said, but if she's

59:38

saying that it's mandatory to support the war,

59:40

then the clip that he plays should

59:42

be demonstrative of that. You would think. That's

59:45

the claim that he's making and then he's playing this clip.

59:47

It was not. It's almost as though he did that

59:49

on purpose. To prime you

59:51

for what you're gonna do. Yeah, so you would

59:53

hear that as

59:55

her saying that. Exactly, yeah.

59:57

So she, you know, Nikki Haley.

59:59

comment was not you must support

1:00:02

Ukraine because Ukraine needs your

1:00:04

support. Right. Right. Right.

1:00:07

But that's the way that we're moving forward. And now Tucker tries-

1:00:09

We're moving forward as though she did say that

1:00:11

despite the fact that she had and he has improved it.

1:00:14

Yes. And now Tucker wants to

1:00:16

sound really smart. And unfortunately,

1:00:18

he

1:00:19

has run up against someone who knows what he's talking

1:00:21

about. Back when they still taught logic,

1:00:23

statements like this were known as tautology. Oh, I wouldn't do

1:00:25

that, buddy. Something is true because it is.

1:00:28

The more you repeat it, the truer it becomes.

1:00:31

Nope. It's a self-reinforcing reality.

1:00:34

There was a time when tautologies were considered

1:00:36

illegitimate arguments, not to mention hilariously

1:00:39

stupid.

1:00:40

Only dumb people talk like that.

1:00:42

Now everybody in power talks

1:00:44

like that. Diversity is our strength. Trans

1:00:47

women are women. Zelensky is Churchill.

1:00:50

It's all self-evidently true. Doesn't

1:00:53

need an explanation and don't ask questions.

1:00:55

Tucker does not understand what he's talking about.

1:00:58

But this strikes me as a piece of evidence that

1:01:00

someone working on his staff probably likes

1:01:02

to watch online debate streamers. Tautology

1:01:05

is one of the terms that you might hear thrown

1:01:07

around by these debate folks along with some

1:01:09

names of fallacies, but they don't usually

1:01:12

use them correctly. No, that's usually why they

1:01:14

are saying them. Yeah, because they didn't take

1:01:16

any classes on these things. Right, right,

1:01:18

right. Because they know that if they yell those words, it ends

1:01:20

the conversation. Read a Wikipedia

1:01:22

article about stuff. I know what a tautology is. But

1:01:25

in the area of logic, a tautology is

1:01:27

a statement that must be true because it has

1:01:29

to be. For instance, A equals

1:01:32

A is a tautology because the thing must be

1:01:34

the same as itself. Another really

1:01:36

elementary one is either

1:01:39

A equals B or A does not

1:01:41

equal B because the disjunction OR

1:01:44

is satisfied if one of the elements is true

1:01:46

and A equals B and A

1:01:48

does not equal B contain all possible

1:01:51

states of being. Either they

1:01:53

are the same or they are not. A tautology

1:01:55

is essentially a structure of a statement that has no

1:01:57

possible way of being false. talking

1:02:00

about logic, tautologies aren't bad arguments.

1:02:02

They're just a term that describes formulations of

1:02:05

sentences that can never be false. And

1:02:07

when we're talking about how something can never be false, it's

1:02:09

important to understand that this is using the word

1:02:12

false in the logic sense. Sentences

1:02:15

have truth values in as much as they can be

1:02:17

true or false based on their structure.

1:02:20

For instance, if you have the sentence A

1:02:22

and B, the truth value

1:02:24

of the sentence is determined by the truth value

1:02:26

of and. For the conjunction

1:02:29

and to be true, both A and B must

1:02:32

be true. So if A and

1:02:34

B are true, the sentence A

1:02:36

and B is true. And if A

1:02:38

is true and B is false, then the sentence A

1:02:41

and B is false. When

1:02:43

you get into different types of grammar within

1:02:45

the sentences, different rules apply for truth values.

1:02:48

For instance, if you have the disjunction

1:02:50

like A or B, that sentence

1:02:53

will be true if A is true, if

1:02:55

B is true, or if both are true.

1:02:58

The only way it can be false is if both

1:03:00

are false. If you're dealing with an

1:03:02

if-then statement like if A then

1:03:04

B, that will be true in every

1:03:06

case except for the instance where A

1:03:08

is true and B is false because

1:03:11

of the relationship of how if-then, and, and

1:03:13

or work. Yeah. All

1:03:15

of these sentence constructions are not tautologies because

1:03:18

there are instances where they can

1:03:20

be false. What Tucker is

1:03:22

talking about is not the logic meaning

1:03:24

of tautology. He's talking about the rhetoric

1:03:26

version. This is a term that's thrown around

1:03:29

to deride someone using

1:03:31

somewhat self-proving or redundant

1:03:33

arguments that people make, like what Tucker's

1:03:36

pretending Nikki Haley said. She

1:03:38

didn't say that you need to support Ukraine because they need

1:03:40

your support, but Tucker claimed that's what she said

1:03:42

most likely because he wanted to do this little

1:03:45

fake smart guy shtick about tautologies because

1:03:48

that sentence would be more

1:03:50

or less a rhetorical redundancy.

1:03:52

Yeah. The problem here runs

1:03:55

a little bit deeper though. The statements

1:03:57

that he mocks at the end of the clip are not

1:03:59

tautologies in the logic sense nor

1:04:01

in the rhetoric sense. They are just sentiments

1:04:04

that he doesn't like. Diversity

1:04:06

as our strength is a bit slogan-y, but it's

1:04:08

not a tautology. It's not even really

1:04:10

something you could translate into the logical form

1:04:12

because it's just a statement. It

1:04:15

wouldn't be an if A then B kind of thing.

1:04:17

It would just be represented by A. There's

1:04:19

no comparative. It would just be, there's no

1:04:22

grammar within it. No, it is a

1:04:24

thing. It's just A and that can be true

1:04:26

or false, thus it's not a tautology. It

1:04:28

also isn't a tautology in the rhetorical

1:04:31

sense because it's not redundant. Our

1:04:33

strength is our strength would be

1:04:35

a rhetorical tautology. Trans

1:04:38

women are women is not a tautology. Again,

1:04:40

it's just a statement that he doesn't like. It's

1:04:42

slightly verbally redundant and

1:04:45

the word woman appears twice, but it's

1:04:47

not really a rhetorical tautology because

1:04:49

of the context of those words. Zelensky

1:04:51

is Churchill is not even close

1:04:54

to a tautology in either sense of the word. Tucker

1:04:56

is using this word to describe beliefs and

1:04:59

I think what he's trying to say is that these

1:05:01

are statements that he feels people throw

1:05:03

around baselessly. They're statements

1:05:06

that are just supposed to be true on their face,

1:05:08

no evidence required. But I don't

1:05:11

think that people who believe those three statements

1:05:13

believe them for no reason. Tucker is

1:05:15

acting like they do, but they don't. I

1:05:17

could very easily explain why I believe the first

1:05:19

two. Like

1:05:21

I could,

1:05:22

it wouldn't be difficult and I'd be happy

1:05:24

to if Tucker wants. Someone else

1:05:26

can take the Zelensky Churchill one though. I'm not gonna

1:05:28

field that. That's not my business. I'll

1:05:31

take two of the three. It's unfortunate that whoever

1:05:33

wrote this monologue for Tucker

1:05:35

didn't actually study any of this stuff because it's

1:05:38

a little bit embarrassing when you try to be condescending

1:05:40

and you're talking about stuff

1:05:42

wrong. When they,

1:05:45

back when they taught logic. Now that

1:05:48

is what we share in common with Alex. It

1:05:50

is very frustrating to be contended

1:05:52

to by somebody who is talking bullshit

1:05:54

out of the side of their face. But in situations like

1:05:57

this, I kind of enjoy it. I mean, I feel bad

1:05:59

for people who.

1:05:59

don't understand what he's talking

1:06:02

about, but for me, I'm like, oh,

1:06:05

that's embarrassing. Yeah. Yeah.

1:06:08

I mean, it's so fun. It's so, it's

1:06:10

such one of those signs of like, if you're

1:06:13

using a $10 word, it's because you don't know

1:06:15

what you're talking about. You know, it's

1:06:17

just one of those. It's just one of those words.

1:06:19

It seems strange to me, the

1:06:21

reason, the need to inject that

1:06:24

word or concept

1:06:26

into this because it's shoehorned

1:06:28

in in a way that is very unnecessary.

1:06:31

Oh no, it might as well be a, I'm

1:06:33

wearing a genius hat superiority

1:06:35

complex level of like, Oh, see,

1:06:38

I thought that we all had moved

1:06:40

on past tautologies, but now

1:06:43

everybody's throwing tautologies left and

1:06:45

right. You've got a tautology. You've

1:06:47

got a tautology. Everybody just won't

1:06:49

stop tautologizing all the time. Yeah.

1:06:52

And you're like, actually, you sound like an idiot. I don't know

1:06:54

if there's like another colloquial

1:06:56

use of that term that

1:06:58

he's, he's evoking or something,

1:07:00

but no, definitely doesn't

1:07:03

match with colloquial

1:07:04

use of tautology. Yeah.

1:07:06

In the Northeast, they say tautology

1:07:08

for all kinds of stuff. You know, that's what they call Coca-Cola.

1:07:12

It's like, bless your heart in Texas. You know, it doesn't

1:07:15

mean what you think it means. Uh-huh. So

1:07:17

the U.S. very uninformed, it

1:07:20

turns out.

1:07:21

By this point, it's possible that American citizens

1:07:23

are the least informed people in

1:07:25

the world. Your average yak

1:07:27

herder and Tajikistan knows who blew up the Nord

1:07:30

Stream pipeline. It's obvious.

1:07:32

Does he think some skinny dude in a dress is

1:07:35

actually a girl? Come on. That

1:07:37

idea would never occur to him. You've

1:07:40

got to be lied to at full volume

1:07:42

over a period of years in order to reach conclusions

1:07:44

like that.

1:07:46

And of course, we have been the media lie.

1:07:48

They do,

1:07:49

but mostly they just ignore the stories that matter.

1:07:52

What's happened to the hundreds of billions of U.S.

1:07:55

dollars we've sent to Ukraine?

1:07:57

No clue.

1:07:58

So there's another commonality with that. Alex

1:08:00

just throwing random transphobic ideas

1:08:02

in. Yep, why not? They're not necessary.

1:08:05

Yep, just throw it in there. So the American public very

1:08:07

well may be poorly informed, particularly

1:08:09

about things that are going on in other countries, but I'm

1:08:11

not sure where it ranks internationally. What

1:08:13

I can say, however, is that Tucker Carlson viewers

1:08:16

are almost certainly less informed than the average American.

1:08:19

There was a famous survey that was done about a decade back

1:08:21

that found that Fox News viewers were

1:08:23

the least informed about current events

1:08:25

and politics, while Daily Show and NPR

1:08:28

viewers were the highest. And

1:08:30

just last year, a survey found that Fox Watchers were

1:08:32

vastly more likely to believe misinformation

1:08:34

about climate issues than people who got news from

1:08:36

other sources. Why

1:08:39

do they think that is? I would guess it's because their

1:08:41

business model is not informing the audience.

1:08:43

Oh, okay, that would make sense. Yeah. Yeah,

1:08:46

so you think they're doing it on purpose? Yeah, I think so. Yeah,

1:08:48

okay. And I think that Tucker's

1:08:50

following along with that here. Yeah, yeah,

1:08:52

that sounds right. I suspect Tucker chose Yak

1:08:54

Herder in Tajikistan because Yak and

1:08:57

Tajikistan are funny words. They're fun

1:08:59

to say. Yeah, I'm not sure he really

1:09:01

should defend his transphobia by

1:09:03

pointing to Tajikistan, though, since that country

1:09:05

is headed by an authoritarian dictator who's

1:09:08

been in office since Tucker was wearing

1:09:10

bowties.

1:09:11

1994, he's been in office since 1994. It's

1:09:15

really easy to find out where the money is going that

1:09:17

we sent to Ukraine.

1:09:18

You can find plenty of mainstream media outlets reporting

1:09:20

on this. Tucker's pretending that it's

1:09:22

some kind of a mystery because it's another shortcut

1:09:25

to making himself look legitimate and like a bold

1:09:27

truth teller as opposed to a big dumb dumb

1:09:29

talking to his audience like they're in grade school. Yeah,

1:09:32

I mean, the funny part about that, of course, is

1:09:34

that if he were talking about the Iraq war, he would

1:09:37

be able to totally legitimately be

1:09:39

like, nobody knows where this hundreds

1:09:41

of millions of dollars went. And then, but

1:09:43

instead he was like, I love the Iraq

1:09:45

war. The irony, I almost, the irony

1:09:48

is astounding. I almost guarantee

1:09:50

that I could find totally 100% from Crossfire.

1:09:55

I would bet a million dollars you could find a like, where

1:09:57

is America putting all this money to?

1:09:59

I spent so

1:10:02

long reading transcripts of Crossfire

1:10:04

episodes and I

1:10:06

didn't want to do more. Yeah, no, I'm reasonable.

1:10:09

Reasonable. Nobody blames you. Yeah.

1:10:12

CNN has like the big archive of them

1:10:14

and I was going through it and there were a couple

1:10:16

that I was like, oh, this could be pretty fucking interesting.

1:10:19

And then I clicked on it and I'm like, oh, it's a Novak

1:10:21

episode. Has CNN ever apologized?

1:10:25

I don't think they have. Maybe not formally. I

1:10:27

really think they should. We need to get

1:10:31

Baghala. We need to get no,

1:10:34

nobody will apologize for the

1:10:36

hell that they have wrought upon us. They'll

1:10:38

all just act like, no, that's part of business.

1:10:40

Fuck you. I don't know if they're responsible for

1:10:43

Tucker. I think they are now.

1:10:45

I worked for Bill Crystal before that.

1:10:48

Bill Crystal is responsible. So

1:10:51

look, man, they're not covering the big

1:10:54

story. Sure. Like, where's that money

1:10:56

going in Ukraine? Right. First of all,

1:10:58

they are. And like, I

1:11:00

never fully understand

1:11:04

media criticism that is

1:11:07

shaped like this. Like why

1:11:10

won't they tell you all the information all the

1:11:12

time? Is there not

1:11:14

a responsibility on the part of some of your

1:11:16

audience to seek information as opposed

1:11:18

to it being delivered to you? I

1:11:20

feel like I feel like again,

1:11:23

this is an infantilization of the audience. Yeah.

1:11:26

If the demand of delivering you all

1:11:28

the information all the time is not met,

1:11:30

then they've failed you. Right.

1:11:34

Or what? It's just like, this is dumb. Yeah.

1:11:37

Yeah. I mean, because

1:11:40

it is an eternal thing that

1:11:42

you can say, there will never be all the

1:11:44

information.

1:11:45

All the information doesn't exist. You

1:11:47

cannot get all the information from any

1:11:50

source about anything. No. Period.

1:11:53

No. I'm not telling you everything.

1:11:56

Fine. Yes, obviously. Because

1:11:58

if you told me everything, my brain would.

1:11:59

And you wouldn't read everything no tell

1:12:02

me the stuff that I need to know the problem

1:12:04

is Nobody is like quite

1:12:07

sure what you need to know and that

1:12:09

gray area is where Tucker works Yeah,

1:12:11

you know that he also is adept

1:12:14

at telling you Or

1:12:16

not telling you things that he thinks Yeah,

1:12:19

no, we don't need to tell you all that stuff that would be really

1:12:21

important context for you loving Putin So

1:12:23

not hear me out on this. Okay. The media does not cover

1:12:26

the big stories that is and

1:12:27

In media you're punished

1:12:30

for being curious but Tucker was about

1:12:32

Dominion machines, but he's getting this information

1:12:34

from the media Come

1:12:36

again. I mean he's telling us

1:12:38

information that he learned from the media

1:12:41

that he is saying doesn't report on it

1:12:44

Do Nazi blogs

1:12:48

Fair point so look their point this

1:12:50

is where everything gets real weird Okay,

1:12:52

not only are the media not interested

1:12:55

in any of this They are actively

1:12:57

hostile to anybody who is

1:12:59

in journalism. Curiosity is the gravest

1:13:02

crime Yesterday, for

1:13:04

example a former Air Force officer who worked

1:13:06

for years in military intelligence

1:13:08

came forward as a whistleblower to reveal that the

1:13:10

US government has physical evidence

1:13:13

of crashed non-human

1:13:15

made aircraft as well as the bodies

1:13:18

of the pilots who flew those aircraft

1:13:20

The Pentagon has spent decades studying

1:13:22

in these otherworldly remains in order

1:13:24

to build more technologically advanced weapons

1:13:27

systems

1:13:28

Okay, that's what the former Intel

1:13:30

officer revealed and it was clear. He was telling the truth

1:13:34

In other words UFOs are actually

1:13:36

real and apparently so is extraterrestrial

1:13:39

life Now we know In

1:13:42

a normal. I'm sorry news would qualify

1:13:44

as a bombshell. I'm sorry

1:13:47

way But in our country

1:13:49

it doesn't so you couldn't have

1:13:51

guessed that was where we're going I did not expect

1:13:54

to hear that UFOs

1:13:57

I excuse me everybody they movie

1:13:59

independence

1:13:59

Independence Day 100% of documentary. Yes.

1:14:03

That's exactly how it worked.

1:14:05

Area 51, you go underground, there's

1:14:07

aliens, Will Smith. Independence Day

1:14:09

is coming up, so Will Smith is

1:14:11

brought up. And someone, maybe

1:14:14

more than one person, pointed out that on our last episode,

1:14:16

during the Wonk shout outs, I did not

1:14:18

recognize the Fresh Prince. Yeah,

1:14:21

yeah, yeah. And I have to say, I was

1:14:24

not,

1:14:24

weirdly, that was not

1:14:27

a show that flew in our household. Fresh

1:14:30

Prince of Bel Air was one of the restricted

1:14:32

lists. It was the Simpsons, the

1:14:35

Faces of Death movies, and fucking

1:14:38

Fresh Prince. And so

1:14:40

many of the shows that

1:14:42

were like, you can't watch those, had to do with

1:14:45

family systems that my parents thought

1:14:48

were dysfunctional. Sure, sure, sure. Married

1:14:50

with children or any of that stuff.

1:14:53

And I was like,

1:14:54

is Fresh Prince really that, like

1:14:58

a dysfunctional family system? Is that a

1:15:00

race thing? And it's not, because we watch

1:15:02

Family Matters all the time. Okay. So,

1:15:05

but I don't know why. So they were just like a nuclear

1:15:07

family only. Maybe. Because,

1:15:10

I mean, the thing is, Will

1:15:13

Smith is from a troubled

1:15:15

area. West Philadelphia. Right, and then he goes

1:15:18

to live with his, exactly,

1:15:20

with his family. But it's a very

1:15:22

close knit family unit. There

1:15:24

are a lot of really important moments for growth.

1:15:27

It's fantastic. I suspect, I was thinking

1:15:29

about this, and I think it might have been a situation where

1:15:31

my parents heard the

1:15:33

song, Parents Just Don't Understand, and

1:15:36

they're parents. Yeah, exactly. And

1:15:39

they were like, well, if we don't, then

1:15:41

we don't. And we refuse to share. And

1:15:43

we will not allow you to watch

1:15:46

this man who maligns parents. Unfortunately,

1:15:49

we don't understand. And it also might

1:15:52

have been, I don't know, might have just been like someone that

1:15:54

seemed too cool or something, you know, fresh

1:15:56

prints.

1:15:57

I think what's funny about

1:15:59

that is that. Instinctively by the Bell

1:16:01

you instinctively got the meter though like

1:16:04

it when you read the fresh brand you did it

1:16:06

in time It was kind of interesting. Yeah,

1:16:09

and let's be let's be totally clear. Yeah,

1:16:11

I am a Will Smith cinematic

1:16:13

thing His television

1:16:16

work. I'm not I don't know all that much. Yeah. Well, what

1:16:18

are you gonna? Do but you talked to me about wild wild west

1:16:20

you talked to me about?

1:16:21

bag of ants oh Boy

1:16:26

oh man struggling to I

1:16:31

Think I think that is

1:16:33

what I think where I just acknowledging

1:16:35

that movie exists is kind of racist now you

1:16:37

forget Like I feel like we all just agree

1:16:39

to pretend that movie didn't exist What

1:16:43

was that

1:16:44

seven pounds was that him? No

1:16:47

wasn't it seven grams. So there's 21 grams 21.

1:16:50

We're moving this the heart transplant

1:16:52

one Yeah, seven pounds is a heart is that

1:16:54

how much I am legend. I

1:16:57

know he wasn't an Independence Day, too That's true.

1:16:59

Yeah, so Tucker's complaining

1:17:01

that you're punished if you're curious in journalism

1:17:04

But then he immediately unquestioningly accepts

1:17:06

the word of a guy who's talking about UFOs

1:17:08

and aliens Yeah, it doesn't seem like what a curious

1:17:11

person would do. No, that seems a very

1:17:13

painfully

1:17:14

uncurious I just I

1:17:16

get it and he seemed it's he's

1:17:18

from the like Air Force and all

1:17:21

that stuff and I get that they've all that stuff

1:17:23

but come on

1:17:23

man. Come on. Come on, man

1:17:26

So that's about a guy named David Grush who's

1:17:28

made these claims, but I've heard these

1:17:30

claims before yeah, and they were bogus Yeah,

1:17:33

this could be something but also Grush himself

1:17:35

hasn't seen anything. He's reporting

1:17:37

things. He's heard He has

1:17:39

at best secondhand information, which Tucker is

1:17:42

just accepting his gospel and like oh aliens

1:17:44

are here and we have their crafts

1:17:46

It's such a dumb way for him to try and score

1:17:48

points on the media by implying that they don't talk

1:17:50

about the important stories And call you a cooke

1:17:52

if you're curious about this real shit First

1:17:55

of all every news outlet ran stories. Yeah 100%

1:17:57

it was a guy who came out

1:19:59

I mean just the idea of just being

1:20:02

like See end

1:20:04

of segment like that's that's what you've got.

1:20:06

Yeah. Why are you mad about Ukraine? We need to go There's

1:20:09

space people

1:20:16

I just it seems dishonest

1:20:19

if if if there were an alien

1:20:21

craft That was capable of

1:20:23

making it to this planet and it landed

1:20:26

either one We would have no idea

1:20:28

what we were looking at right or two We would

1:20:30

instantly understand how to travel through

1:20:33

space. Yeah, I mean it's crazy Yeah, and

1:20:35

and I think I think that his behavior

1:20:37

implies that he is not as convinced

1:20:40

by this evidence He's pretending to be yeah,

1:20:43

so look man. Why wasn't it on the front page?

1:20:45

We need front

1:20:46

page coverage In a normal

1:20:48

country this news would qualify as a

1:20:50

bombshell the story of the millennium

1:20:53

But in our country it doesn't

1:20:56

the whistleblower's account ran on a technology

1:20:58

website called the debrief Which you probably never

1:21:01

heard of the Washington Post had that

1:21:03

story

1:21:04

but decided not to run it The

1:21:06

New York Times meanwhile, it's pretended it never happened

1:21:09

on the front page of the New York Times website

1:21:11

this morning There were five stories about

1:21:13

Ukraine as well as four stories

1:21:15

apiece about Donald Trump

1:21:17

Trans people and climate change

1:21:19

the usual lineup There

1:21:21

was nothing at all about how

1:21:23

an alien species is flying hypersonic

1:21:25

aircraft over our cities. Not one word

1:21:28

Yeah for good. So if you're wondering why

1:21:30

our country seems so dysfunctional This

1:21:33

is a big part of the reason cuz we're not

1:21:35

talking about aliens on the front page All right.

1:21:38

Next part next part again aliens

1:21:41

not country-specific not important to

1:21:43

a country zero Countries

1:21:45

don't exist for aliens if an alien lands

1:21:47

all the countries want to know if if

1:21:50

this were the case countries become a

1:21:52

lot less Meaningful if we have aliens

1:21:56

National borders seem silly at the very

1:21:58

least France should be

1:21:59

It's like the EU should be like

1:22:02

hey if you guys have aliens

1:22:04

we need to talk about it, right? Like

1:22:07

if you want why are you making it? Oh? Meeting

1:22:09

in a real country this would

1:22:11

be bombshell news no if it were real.

1:22:14

It's bombshell news to everybody Immediately

1:22:17

yeah, why aren't you complaining about the

1:22:19

the Guardian? Spiegel

1:22:22

should be good Oh my God

1:22:24

Germans hate aliens like it should be

1:22:27

the insane the front page of Der Spiegel and

1:22:29

all these articles about Trump Exactly

1:22:32

like you don't get what it is if

1:22:34

you think that it's real but again This

1:22:36

is all just belaying the insincerity

1:22:38

of the point that he's making bullshit.

1:22:41

Yes, it's absurd Yeah, so

1:22:43

look they didn't cover aliens yeah,

1:22:45

and that means that our media is like the

1:22:47

Soviet Union There was nothing at

1:22:50

all about how an alien species

1:22:52

is flying hypersonic aircraft over our

1:22:54

cities not one word

1:22:57

So if you're wondering why our country seems so

1:22:59

dysfunctional this is a big

1:23:01

part of the reason Nobody

1:23:04

knows what's happening a? Small

1:23:07

group of people can access all relevant

1:23:09

information and the rest of us

1:23:11

don't know We're allowed to yap all we want

1:23:13

about racism But

1:23:15

go ahead and talk about something that really matters

1:23:17

like aliens Trust

1:23:21

us That's

1:23:22

how they maintain control

1:23:25

When Western tourists first started traveling in

1:23:27

large numbers to the Soviet Union in the early

1:23:29

1970s They found that many Russians

1:23:31

had a completely warped understanding of

1:23:33

the United States

1:23:35

They thought that Americans lived in grinding

1:23:37

poverty

1:23:38

in a state of perpetual race war

1:23:40

and were desperate to flee to the freedom and prosperity of

1:23:42

the Eastern Bloc They thought

1:23:45

this because that's what they had been told

1:23:47

they had no way to know otherwise The

1:23:49

few Russians who understood what was really going on

1:23:51

in the rest of the world had learned about it

1:23:53

from listening to shortwave radio broadcasts

1:23:56

sometimes under the covers so the neighbors wouldn't hear

1:23:59

Many years later, it is bewildering

1:24:01

to consider the ironies here.

1:24:03

We're the ones who live in ignorance now. This

1:24:06

is incoherent. Apparently because

1:24:08

the New York Times didn't cover this UFO guy on

1:24:10

their front page, we're subject to a crushing, centrally

1:24:13

controlled media like there was in the USSR. This

1:24:16

is idiotic. But, while we're on the

1:24:18

subject of that story Tucker is telling about the people in the

1:24:20

USSR, let's examine that for a second.

1:24:22

He's saying that when Americans went over to Russia,

1:24:25

Russian people had a misconception about

1:24:27

Americans based on the media that they'd taken in

1:24:29

that characterized them in a certain way for political

1:24:31

reasons. That's interesting, because

1:24:33

that's exactly what Tucker and Alex do. Would

1:24:36

it surprise their audience to learn that blue cities

1:24:38

aren't constantly on fire, they aren't swallowed

1:24:41

up by a perpetual race war, and our streets

1:24:44

aren't actually covered with feces

1:24:45

and needles? It might surprise them,

1:24:48

like those Russians were surprised. I'm

1:24:50

gonna throw this out there. It kind of feels

1:24:53

even like Tucker and Alex

1:24:55

say things like, you know, this

1:24:57

country is filled with poor,

1:25:00

struggling people who are always on the verge

1:25:02

of a race war.

1:25:04

I feel like that's exactly what they say. So

1:25:08

what do we do with that? I mean, you

1:25:10

look at this and say... How?

1:25:13

How do you get... That's not fair.

1:25:16

That's not fair. No. There

1:25:18

should be, at the very least... Listen, I get it. You can

1:25:20

lie. We're never gonna get past truth

1:25:22

or freedom of speech, whatever. I

1:25:24

say there should be penalties. All right?

1:25:27

Dunk tank. Totally. I'm

1:25:29

fine with penalties for this type of

1:25:31

shit. You can't... Like the Nikki

1:25:33

Haley thing. If we have shit

1:25:35

from you 25 years ago doing this, you

1:25:38

get a penalty. Well, unless that

1:25:40

shit from you 25 years ago, you have

1:25:43

really wrestled with and

1:25:46

owned up to and shown growth from.

1:25:49

Because people can. They can grow. And

1:25:51

there is the potential for even Tucker Carlson

1:25:54

back when he was working for the weekly standard

1:25:56

or on Crossfire

1:25:56

to recognize like, hey, there's

1:25:58

some...

1:25:59

shitty problematic ways with the way that

1:26:02

I engage with Media and

1:26:04

the attention that I try and accrue sure

1:26:07

he's not done that and that's part of the reason why

1:26:09

these 25 years ago Are still fairly?

1:26:12

Relevant right right and I feel like

1:26:14

that's where we're getting into the issue

1:26:17

I actually think yeah what I would say

1:26:19

what I want to say is With

1:26:22

the Nikki Haley thing as opposed to the cut

1:26:24

like the punishment Be like

1:26:26

the dunk tank let's say sure that's not

1:26:28

because of things You said 25 years ago, right? It's

1:26:31

because you are saying that she

1:26:33

said something and then playing a clip of her saying

1:26:35

something else yes if you do that

1:26:37

Dunk tank yes, I'm fine with that yeah,

1:26:39

yeah, and then while you're in the dunk tank We can bring up the

1:26:42

things you said 25 years ago. Yeah, I mean

1:26:44

so you can think about it while you're underwater Do you

1:26:46

know here's the problem with the 25 years

1:26:49

people can grow and change and all that stuff is

1:26:51

generally speaking if? Nothing

1:26:54

changes for them. They won't grow

1:26:56

and change so for a Tucker

1:26:58

Why would he grow and change he's only

1:27:00

ever been richer and more famous this time has gone on

1:27:03

you know what I'm saying yeah So

1:27:05

humans are you know somewhat unpredictable? creatures

1:27:08

and you know Sometimes it

1:27:10

can involve life circumstances

1:27:12

it can fall it can involve learning sure

1:27:15

it can involve the Relationship that you have

1:27:17

with somebody that opens your eyes to

1:27:19

a lot of stuff You know there you know money

1:27:21

and success are not necessarily the only things

1:27:25

That motivate a change sure

1:27:27

and so

1:27:28

I don't know I Look

1:27:30

the reality is that he hasn't done any of

1:27:32

that now Recu requisite change

1:27:35

that you would need to be like to understand what

1:27:37

he said the reality is dunk

1:27:39

tank dunk tank dunk tank Yes, yeah,

1:27:41

I would say so yeah Yeah, but but the

1:27:44

the the thing

1:27:45

of like these these

1:27:47

people in the Soviet Union are being fed all

1:27:49

this bullshit Yeah, that they couldn't

1:27:51

see outside of the fact that he and Alex

1:27:54

do that. Yeah is really

1:27:57

Annoying you know and

1:27:59

Those Russians thought that

1:28:03

Americans wanted to flee to the USSR.

1:28:05

Yeah. But with people like Alex and Tucker, it's

1:28:07

even funnier and worse. Alex

1:28:10

and Tucker and all these other right wing shitheads, like,

1:28:12

you know, the Hanities and what have you, they pretend

1:28:14

that they want to flee the big cities

1:28:17

themselves. Yep. And they don't. No,

1:28:19

they're great. Yeah. We love living here. Yeah. It's

1:28:23

absurd. Yeah. I mean, like,

1:28:27

I will be the first to admit that I say

1:28:29

that I want to flee the big city, but it's not for political

1:28:31

reasons. I just want a tree. Yeah. I

1:28:33

don't want a bigger yard where I can maybe

1:28:36

keep a funny animal. Yeah. Like, maybe

1:28:38

I get a camel. Oh,

1:28:39

camel would be great. Yeah. I mean, not camel.

1:28:42

You get a llama. You can't have a camel in Illinois.

1:28:44

Watch me. You can have a llama in Illinois. Watch

1:28:46

me. All right. I'll dress it up like a llama.

1:28:50

No, it'll be any of the wiser. But

1:28:54

yeah, it's exploitative.

1:28:56

I don't think if, I mean, again, penalty,

1:28:59

if you're a propagandist, fine, that's what

1:29:01

you do. But you can't call out other

1:29:03

propaganda. It's just wrong. It's just wrong.

1:29:06

You should have to pretend like everybody's

1:29:08

telling the truth all the time. Otherwise,

1:29:11

you sound crazy. Sure. I mean,

1:29:13

what's your, how about a snake

1:29:15

in a can? Snake in a can for that one? Yeah.

1:29:17

I don't know. Are we only doing clown

1:29:19

based? Yes. Okay. Then

1:29:21

in that case, buzzer handshake,

1:29:23

giant hand from jackass.

1:29:26

You go back to that one periodically. I think you've

1:29:28

suggested that a couple of times.

1:29:29

I know, but I mean, it's just, it's

1:29:31

sometimes you're just, it's

1:29:33

just right. It's just right. So

1:29:36

here's the dismount. Yeah. And

1:29:38

already. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's only

1:29:40

like a 10 minute episode. No, that's what I'm saying. We've been

1:29:42

going for almost an hour and a half. Right. Of

1:29:44

course. Here. Here's where Tucker leaves

1:29:47

us. The

1:29:48

US government has managed to classify more

1:29:50

than a billion so-called public documents.

1:29:53

So at this point, we can't possibly know what our leaders

1:29:55

are doing. We're not allowed to know

1:29:57

by definition. That is not a democracy.

1:30:00

It is fine with the media. What? What?

1:30:03

Security is a powerful tool of control.

1:30:06

Stop asking how we got so rich. Here's another story about

1:30:08

racism. Go eat each other.

1:30:10

That's the program. What? That's

1:30:13

how most of us now live here in the United States,

1:30:15

manipulated by lies, silenced

1:30:17

by taboos.

1:30:19

It is unhealthy and it's dehumanizing

1:30:21

and we're tired of it.

1:30:23

As of today, we've come to Twitter, which we hope will

1:30:25

be the shortwave radio under the blankets.

1:30:27

We're told there are no gatekeepers here. If

1:30:29

that turns out to be false, we'll leave.

1:30:32

But in the meantime, we are grateful to be here.

1:30:34

We'll be back with much more very soon.

1:30:37

So yeah, he fancies himself the

1:30:39

shortwave under the blankets, which

1:30:41

gave the people living in the USSR,

1:30:44

the select few gave them an accurate

1:30:47

presentation of what's going on in the world. Meanwhile,

1:30:51

in reality, he's the media that's

1:30:53

lying about what the Americans are actually,

1:30:56

the conditions Americans are actually living in. He's

1:30:58

the polar opposite of the thing that

1:31:01

he's metaphorically positioning himself

1:31:03

as. And that's

1:31:05

not too surprising, but it

1:31:08

is a metaphor. And that is something

1:31:10

that Alex can't handle. It

1:31:13

requires too much forethought

1:31:16

to end on a bow.

1:31:17

Like

1:31:21

he put a bow on it. It's a shitty

1:31:23

bow and the present sucks, but it is

1:31:25

at least wrapped. Yeah.

1:31:28

Yeah. I mean, here's, here's what's fun.

1:31:30

Here's what's fun. I think I like about

1:31:32

Tucker and Alex together. All right.

1:31:36

It is, it is so, it is so

1:31:38

much like a great example of

1:31:40

the people think that if

1:31:42

you graduated college, it's more blah, blah,

1:31:45

blah, or whatever it is.

1:31:47

This is such a clear version of like

1:31:49

Tucker was better at school.

1:31:52

Yeah. Do you know what I mean? He's not, he's

1:31:54

not smarter than Alex. He's not et

1:31:56

cetera or anything along those lines. Probably

1:31:59

not. He was better at.

1:31:59

doing the things at school. Well, he probably

1:32:02

also had access to school that

1:32:04

would be more pleasant. Like Alex went to Austin

1:32:07

Community College and probably

1:32:09

didn't see it as like a foray into

1:32:11

anything that was gonna be useful

1:32:13

for him. Whereas Tucker went to like all

1:32:15

these elite private schools and like

1:32:18

there was a path there. Totally. If

1:32:20

Alex was in that situation, I could see

1:32:22

him probably continuing through school. Right, right,

1:32:24

right. Well, I mean, that's not the point.

1:32:27

The point that I'm making, is

1:32:29

that he

1:32:29

is using the superficial

1:32:32

trappings of education to

1:32:35

say what is meaningfully, no

1:32:39

less, nothing more than what Alex

1:32:41

says. Yeah, yeah. From a content

1:32:45

perspective, from a number

1:32:48

of the tricks that Alex uses are

1:32:50

identical. Yeah. Yeah,

1:32:54

and so it is one of those exemplars

1:32:57

of the way that we treat

1:33:00

appearance over substance. Because

1:33:04

Tucker is better able

1:33:07

at saying the same exact thing

1:33:09

as Alex in a way that is

1:33:11

defensible,

1:33:12

or

1:33:15

I mean like better

1:33:17

or more educated or any number

1:33:20

of different like superficial differences, people

1:33:22

allow him to get away with so much more shit.

1:33:25

You know? Maybe, and

1:33:27

also maybe that is also a

1:33:29

function of the privilege in social

1:33:31

class. Ain't that the truth? Yeah.

1:33:34

And the decades of media

1:33:37

involvement and connections and such that

1:33:39

he has, that Alex doesn't.

1:33:42

And

1:33:44

it's just wild that he's lived down the bow

1:33:47

tie. I

1:33:49

come back to that a bit because it's silly.

1:33:52

It should have ended. I thought it was gonna end. It

1:33:54

would end somebody now. Oh. I

1:33:56

think. I don't know. The memes would never

1:33:59

end. Yeah, that's.

1:33:59

probably true I mean I genuinely

1:34:03

I mean I genuinely thought he was gonna go away

1:34:06

I really didn't think I really did

1:34:08

think all the way back when I

1:34:10

thought it was like in 2004 I mean

1:34:12

yeah in like 2005 2006 after after that whole thing and they

1:34:16

I thought he was just gonna be dropped you know I

1:34:18

thought they were just gonna let it go

1:34:20

and then he got stronger terrifying

1:34:23

took a while it did take a while I'll

1:34:25

take a while so I think that

1:34:27

I have an interest in covering

1:34:29

more of these yeah I I think

1:34:32

that especially since it's a new thing

1:34:34

that he's starting it does somewhat make sense

1:34:37

to monitor and track this thing yeah I

1:34:40

would be interested in people's perspective on

1:34:42

it see what they think I'd like to hear

1:34:44

your thoughts when you think about it a little bit yeah

1:34:47

but I

1:34:49

lost my thought I'm not sure I think

1:34:51

that I

1:34:52

guess this show is dumb more

1:34:55

than I thought yeah I

1:34:58

get I think that the baby talk is is

1:35:01

like the way he's talking down to the audience

1:35:03

is pretty pretty seen

1:35:06

yeah I mean it's it is it like

1:35:08

pornographic in its excess

1:35:11

I was listening to that and I was like I

1:35:14

just turned this off yeah I would not

1:35:16

put up with this commentator how dare

1:35:18

you sir how dare you speak to me

1:35:20

like even if I agreed with the things he was saying

1:35:22

I would find it really obnoxious talking

1:35:24

to me in a really fucked up way I

1:35:27

don't I don't appreciate this

1:35:28

oh and

1:35:30

the other thought that I had was the

1:35:34

the things that he's

1:35:36

saying

1:35:37

are potentially more explicit

1:35:39

in terms of their connections to you

1:35:41

know neo-nazi ish white supremacist

1:35:44

stuff like yeah the ways that he was describing Zelensky

1:35:47

for example totally they're

1:35:49

more explicit and I think that may be a function

1:35:52

of the fact that he has to prepare he has to write

1:35:54

these things out whereas Alex is just running

1:35:56

off the cuff yeah and he'll say some

1:35:58

things that are real fucked up

1:35:59

and what have you. But

1:36:02

he's often talking a mile a minute, and by

1:36:04

the time he said them, this is on to something

1:36:06

else. Whereas this is very intentional,

1:36:09

and very much like a, this is a

1:36:11

choice to call him rat-like

1:36:13

oppressor of Christians. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No,

1:36:15

if you wrote something down in advance,

1:36:18

that is a little bit more

1:36:22

meaningful than if you're just throwing

1:36:24

shit at the top of your brain. Yeah. I

1:36:27

have some wonder, I do wonder if

1:36:29

this will last.

1:36:30

The show? Yeah. No. Like

1:36:33

I don't know if it's financially viable, I

1:36:35

don't know if he's gonna be

1:36:37

able to satisfy

1:36:40

the people

1:36:42

he wants to reach. I

1:36:45

know that that Andrew Anglin review was

1:36:48

not super complimentary as a whole.

1:36:51

Yeah. Because he was like, yeah,

1:36:53

he's saying all this stuff that's right about Zelensky

1:36:55

and Ukraine, and then he gets into UFOs. Fucking

1:36:59

idiot. Sure, whatever. So

1:37:01

there is a desire up from that Nazi base to

1:37:06

see him go mask off. And

1:37:09

probably isn't going to do that. Who

1:37:12

knows to what extent

1:37:14

Elon Musk and Twitter will allow him

1:37:17

to push whatever envelope there is.

1:37:19

So I don't know, I feel, it seems like

1:37:21

a temporary

1:37:23

stopgap or whatever,

1:37:26

until he can launch

1:37:28

something else that he can make a ton of money on. Yeah,

1:37:31

I mean, if you're, now

1:37:35

is not the time to hitch your wagon to

1:37:37

Twitter's future. No, but from

1:37:39

what I understand, the reason

1:37:41

that he would do this is

1:37:44

because he feels that this

1:37:46

is not breaking his non-compete clause.