I suspect I don't have many readers who don't already read el gato malo at bad cattitude, but we're after the same thing, lately, and he does it in a more sophisticated way:
They've reached their cul-de-sac. If freedom of speech is a right-wing trope, but she sure loves to exercise it, right?
These people are incapable of any kind of profound thinking. They bring nothing to the table except pictures of themselves trying to look cool and 'edgy'. All superficial bull shit.
Virtually none of these people are “in the First Amendment business”. That’s not what they do, and they’re very forthright about not doing it. So what’s the point of holding them to a standard they’ve dropped?
“But,” one might say, “they still refer to their field as journalism. So …?”
Our problem is we let them keep using “journalism” as their job description. We shouldn’t. Because if journalism involves investigation and digging for sources to reveal hidden truths, these people aren’t even doing “bad journalism”. They’re not doing journalism at all. What they’re doing is PR. Full stop. And at present this doesn’t apply only to little fish like this Tina, but all the way up the chain, to NYT and WaPo, who apparently think their job is to pass on memos from “unnamed sources” in the Deep State. “Write a few framing paragraphs, copy-paste the pronouncement from my connection over at DOJ, and I’m done. I did my journalism for the day.” “No, asshole. You just did a bit of easy-peasy PR. Which is what they pay you for.”
First Amendment? What role does the First Amendment play for people working in Public Relations? The answer is obvious: Zero. And these people all know it.
A journalist originally was someone who kept a journal and sold portions of it to a newspaper. Sometimes, he or his editor would take profits on the side through blackmail and/or PR. Dreiser writes about this in 19th century Chicago, which had many newspapers. The standards that everyone talks about were developed later. So to the extent that journalists are violating those standards, they can be seen as returning to journalism's roots.
Yes, certainly, the standards were developed later. But that doesn’t mean what we have now is a “return” to the “roots” you refer to. Rather what we have is something new. This is why I disagree with Ben’s characterization of these people as “hacks”. Sure, they’re hacks, in a way, but they’re oddly all parrotting and copy-pasting the same Narrative, in service to an overarching Blob. There is a combination of lockstep groupthink and shrill illogic that reaches from the little fish all the way up to the corporate outlets in real time, at the speed of clicks. And it’s increasingly hegemonic, and its groupthink is algorithmically reinforced. In short, this ain’t 19th c. Chicago.
Further, “journalism” in the 20th c. developed its own methods and ethics, and thus the word in a sense changed meaning. Clearly from the days of individuals selling parts of their journals. Since we still live under the aegis of those 20th c. developments, my claim is that we should verbally separate the recently crucial profession “journalism” from the PR influencers and fakes who now claim to be doing it but are not.
Yes, valid observation, but I’m approaching from a different corner. PR people are likewise protected, but their job description is such that they might not ever think about the fact. And logically so. Why would they? Likewise these particular “hacks” are at no risk of persecution because they reveal no hidden truth any state would want to persecute them for revealing. They are rather, as Chris keenly demonstrates, free associating and stringing phrases together. The “right” phrases.
It’s that bad. Ergo, they are not even quite hacks. At the low level of Tina, they’re something like TikTok “influencers”, but working in phrases rather than gestures and makeup style. At the higher level of cable “news” reporters, it’s similar, they’re influencers, but now more professionally PR. With WaPo, etc., they’re basically print PR.
I’m suggesting a strategy. Loudly denying them the name “journalists”, laughing when they claim to be working in that field, is a revelatory move. Some Americans, after all, still remember what a journalist was. There are no such creatures around today, certainly not in any corporately owned outlets. Many Americans will notice: “Hey, it’s true, these people *aren’t* journalists, are they? And they’re not even trying to be. Why is that?”
You initially wrote: "Tina, darling, you're in the First Amendment business. Maybe start acting like it." My comment wasn't to disagree, to imply that journalism isn't the First Amendment business or that the First Amendment is now no longer important. On the contrary. My comment was to offer a contrasting angle. That anyone in the US who calls herself a "journalist" can openly tar the First Amendment as a "right-wing trope" tells us something. Something we should use.
I'll give an analogy. Say you live in a town and you see the Fire Chief on TV claim that protective helmets and fireproof gear and boots are basically nonsense, that they are a "safetyist trope" that he and his team can dispense with. Bizarre, you think. Then you learn that when there's a fire in your town, the firefighters never try to enter the burning building, but gather on the street in front commenting on the fire and making hopeful talk about how the residents in that building will likely find a new place to live. "Ah," you say to yourself, "so this is why the Fire Chief can claim safety gear is just a trope. He doesn't even fucking fight the fires!"
This is akin to what we have with a class of self-described "journalists" who openly diss the First Amendment. They can only do so because they're not fucking doing their jobs, not by any stretch of the imagination. And the lack of journalism has become so entrenched that many of these people, many actually employed in the field, don't even realize that what they’re doing isn't journalism.
In the same way you in that town might decide to come out with an editorial unmasking your local fire department--"they don't even try to fight fires!"--we should have started awhile back to refuse to call these people journalists.
But should we call them "PR influencers" or just "PR"?
I remember it was a thing in school (early seventies) for someone to make like they were going to punch or slap you, stopping short of actually making contact, and when you shouted for them to stop (i am a girl, not a punching type), they would say, "it's a free country" as their "defense"
Always wondered where that mindset came from; I guess they were practicing for these times.
I don’t dispute anyone’s right to freely express their opinion (at least that used to be a right in this country). I just don’t think we should equate journalism today with promoting or defending the first amendment. IMHO what it is about today is shutting down and/or denying that right to most people.
Which is a betrayal of the ethics of journalism. Which is why I’m suggesting we unmask these people. They’re not journalists and aren’t trying to be. They aren’t paid to be. They’d be fired for doing actual journalism.
Ok, so let’s define the genre then. A prompt: it’s treacly to TPT[shouldn’t]B, smelly to many else, and it comes out of the back end of male bovine.
Or on the pattern of ‘country music = three chords and the truth’, this soi-disant élite journalism = a slew of hackneyed -ist & -phobe libel labels and umpteen blatant lies.
she's just parroting the narrative. She got the marching papers from her editors, and did what she was told. She believes every word, no doubt about that, but she cares little about the 1st ammendment. She knows that shes in the protected class, and censorship is not a fear. If the tables turned and her narrative became "dangerous misinformation", shed be screaming like a banshee about her rights. People of her ilk fail to realize that somehow, and trying to explain that to her would be fruitless.
Wouldn’t it be ironic when the outcome of all this insidious censorship from the top down...doesn’t control the outcome? If the public they mean to control catches on and ,,,rebels? Could we be witnessing the slow burn?
I would not be surprised to learn that one or more of these supposed journalists is ChatGPT under a pseudonym with an AI-generated photo as the avatar. If their publication is actually paying real humans to write this nonsense, it' a total waste of money, since these supposed journalists already write like an AI chatbot anyway.
Nah, I'm sceptical: would expect irksomely copious giveaways to pepper their servings, the wonder-clones of 'it's important to remember/recognise/acknowledge', 'complex and multifaceted', or 'I was designed to provide accurate and reliable information...' Oops, gone overboard with the last one. Prolly, not sure 🤭
none of the people who demonize tucker carlson have ever watched his show. i'm willing to bet on that. when i finally did watch him, i was stunned. he was not at all what i had been led to expect and everything he had to say was eminently reasonable. he IS correct- you DO know the truth when you hear it, no matter how simply it's packaged and you DO know a lie when you're being fed a whopper no matter how much sauce is on the bun.
The Left always holds up the boogeyman- and prays that people won’t listen for themselves. 30+ years ago when my husband and I were dating he was listening to this guy named Rush, who I knew with the certainty of a 20-something gal was a misogynist, idiot, and all around evil person. (Ah, the 20s...) He challenged me to listen to one hour of one show one time and then he’d stop talking about it if I didn’t like it. Well of course I did it, with sufficient martyrdom and attitude, so he would just stfu. (Amazing he married me, really!) And guess what? Shockingly, Rush wasn’t any of those things - and to my credit I did admit it. I didn’t drive enough to be a regular listener (I only listen to the radio when driving since I can’t seem to pay attention otherwise.) But most of what Rush said, especially in the early days, proved correct. And he certainly wasn’t all the things he was painted as being.
Tucker is, I think, even more courageous than Rush because our times are definitely more... insane. Evil. Dangerous. We need these fearless voices - here on SubStack, on the air, online. We don’t have to agree with everything they say all the time - unlike the progressives who can’t ever disagree and probably use the same toothpaste for fear of being outed. We need that “modern right wing trope” more than ever.
This happened during Covid with my brother who lives in NY and is married to a hyper liberal CNN/MSNBC junkie who probably still wears 6 or 7 layered masks when she comes in contact with another being.
He honestly couldn’t care less and just got vaccinated because it was the thing to do and it enabled him to go back to his gym.
I sent him a link to a Highwire podcast and it was as if the floodgates of reason opened before him. He said suddenly everything made sense to him. He went back and listened to every Highwire episode since the show began and became a regular donor. He’s had to change credit cards a few times due to nanny state monitoring.
Then he returned the favor by discovering Tucker Carlson and sending those links to me
Jesse Kelly fills that void. Tucker Carlson is great too, but I think they have differing skill sets, and Jesse Kelly's is closer to what Rush had with the radio format (although Rush did it with half his brain tied behind his back).
I certainly agree with that. What we have lost however, is the fact that Tucker reached beyond who could’ve been typified as his base. And there is something to seeing a person’s face as they speak to you that lends credibility. I just listened to Buck Sexton and Megyn Kelly speak about the fact that fox may have to bring him back. His contract remains in effect and their losses are humongous.
The Regime wants you bad people, (you MFers know who you are!), that we forced Tucker out. You must bear witness to the sacrificial firing and symbolic media crucifixion of Tucker, which was his own damn fault for defying and ridiculing his august diaperness, President Mannequin and his highly credentialed corps of political prostitutes / sexually conflicted sociopathic misfits. Of course Tucker is the personification of normal Americans, we took psychology at Harvard. Duh. You people hate us for being so ...awesome, yeah awesome, and so symbolically we are crucifying you. So take that. We are contracting with our crack team of schlock propaganda shills from outlets that nobody knows, watches, or believes to get the threats out and show everyone how petty we are... I mean triumphant in our righteousness. You better not get any ideas bub, because we can get to you too. And don’t try any of that meme stuff. You see where that’ll get you- the big house. We have judges on speed dial and on the payroll..You punks are gonna learn. We destroy all who oppose the new world odor, or at least we annoy the hell out of them. We also destroy everything else we touch , but we’re not going there right now, so drop it. We are done with this whole Constitution and free election thing, whatever that is. From now on, it’s our way or maybe you spend a weekend locked in the ABC green room with Michelle Obama and the hosts of The View , who will supervise a 48 hour marathon DEI struggle session and make you repeat “our forever First Lady” over and over again until your gums bleed. How would you like that? ....That’s what we thought.
Is Tina Nguyen too stupid to realize that her entire article serves to reinforce the part of Tucker’s video that she directly quoted — the bit about there not being many places left where you can still find Americans saying true things? Were her editors at Puck too dumb to realize that? Or do they think their *readers* are the ones too stupid to notice?
Whatever the case, being a left-wing griftwriter has to be the world’s easiest job. In fact, would anyone here be surprised if you found out Nguyen had ChatGPT generate this bucket of slop?
Not sure those are antonyms, so far defenestrate and refried are the winners. The losers are Puck and that writer for Puck, which and who are the antonyms for "clear" and "headed".
My first thought was that she must be implying that Leni Riefenstahl was Tucker’s camera operator, but Tina thinks that was a character on Laverne and Shirley.
Well, the chances of finding a like-minded community are greater in the USA for sure given the population. But to be quite frank, the USA is barely better than Canada. NONE of this shit should be happening in America. At all. I really don't know which country is worse at the moment. I see lotsa pros and cons.
I had a friend who was blessed with good looks and the physique of a Greek god, not even exaggerating. Didn't even try. He quit going to bars because every time he did, some dumbass would pick a fight with him. He was actually a very kind, gentle man, (he became a missionary), but he'd grudgingly clock them and drop them just so they'd shut up.
Some people... Friend of mine is a security guard, moonlighting as a bouncer. He's got some nice anecdotes.
"Do you know who I am?" is his favourite when he's tending the door at some joint or club. Anyone says that, he puts them in a choke-hold and the other guard calls for back-up (doormen/bouncers always work in pairs here, with at least 2-3 guys as back-up or working the locale itself).
The one incident he's got at his no.1 spot was at the local college when he was assigned to guard the side of a building (a huge elongated monstrosity of modern architecture).
It's built facing the ocean, and has a facade of heavy sheets of glass. This time, one of those had fallen onto the sidewalk to thatside of the building was cordoned off - the sheets weigh tons.
And he has to be on his toes he realises because the PhDs, the lecturers and the professors just flat out ignore the tape, the signs and everything.
When stopped, many of them responded with "That doesn't apply to me, do you expect me to walk around to the otherside and use the students' entrance?!"
Friend was apoplectic, but it sure cured any respect he had for academics.
100% agree they are trying to provoke. Which then serves as predicate for further clampdowns and further efforts to provoke. That's their MO.
Heck any non-approved speech is violence to these jihadists.
My take atm is support and enthuse with like minded folks online. We patriots need each other. Do not waste your energy trying to convince NPCs. And especially do not talk up violence or civil war. That's just chum for the ICs.
Agree 100%. Find, support, and encourage like-minded people.
Media and social media is trying to advanve the narrative that we are an isolated band howling in the wind, but there are far more of us than they're letting on. Demoralization is a huge part of their plan.
Chiefly to help all the "sleep-walkers" to wake-up. There are not enough of us paying attention.
Covid is a perfect example:
Part of the behavioral dynamics was to make the resistors appear as "disruptors", to fill them with "rage" and to isolate/silence them by virtue of social tyranny.
So this is a double edge sword. The longer people are lulled to sleep the more isolated we become. The danger of sleep walking is apathy. It is always the last mile to bondage.
I think we will "defeat" the Globalist, et al, in the end (and pick up the proverbial trash when it's over), but we do not get there without "megaphone's" for like minded folks.
Anne M. Roper asks a very important question pertinent to organizing and waking the sleep-walkers:
Why should/would they want to know more?
There must be a tangible, concrete "Why" relating to their everyday life.
Why should they care, when their bellies are full, they have a roof over their head and live a leisurely life their great-grand parents for the most part couldn't have been able to imagine?
For those far enough gone, being directly affected themselves isn't even enough.
The two-minute hate is a very powerful thing. It not only focuses the soldiers, it also forges solidarity where there should be none. It's the ramp that makes escalation to the next level a simple task.
If we looked at it from a certain angle, meaning could be extracted from it. It's just that not all meaningful pictures are pretty.
When a people draw a bead on a big, blurry (to them) target, and shout DEVIL, DEVIL, DEVIL, there are several possible reasons for that, but the Razor suggests a carrot of advantage coupled with a stick of exile.
That's a potent combo. But I think the meaning of it can be found in the refusal to look at the object in question. Carlson is like Medusa or Sodom; a dreaded direction that's more frightening than a subject with known qualities. The same could be said of vax injuries, or Ukraine, or their coming job obsolescence, or a hundred directions that they are forbidden to look because they'll turn to stone or salt. As these forbidden sights pile up, the coerced blindness eventually drives them mad. In this light all talk of lunatics in bunkers becomes IMAX projection and weird autobiography.
Well, she did meet Hitler, I mean Tucker once, and faced him down, surviving his *swallows and looks around* right-wing, extremist humor. That's got to be good for something, right? I smell hazard pay in her future.
I think this rough beast's hour has, indeed, come round at last. The mere anarchy and blood-dimmed tide being loosed upon the world have awakened it from its 20 centuries of stony sleep.
Careful what you wish for, that's an idea that's been floated around for a decade or more now.
Utilitarian thinkers have argued that by adding anti-depressants and calming chemicals to the tap-water in major cities, violent crime and civil unrest could be virtually eliminated, especially if comibined with free (read: tax funded but privately owned) dispensaries for such chemicals.
I suspect I don't have many readers who don't already read el gato malo at bad cattitude, but we're after the same thing, lately, and he does it in a more sophisticated way:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/asches-to-ashes-all-fall-down
"Free speech, that right-wing trope."
Tina, darling, you're in the First Amendment business. Maybe start acting like it.
That sentence made me growl like a dog.
Jaw-dropping ‘holy fuck’-worthy. Still in shock.
They're utterly boring and predictable.
They've reached their cul-de-sac. If freedom of speech is a right-wing trope, but she sure loves to exercise it, right?
These people are incapable of any kind of profound thinking. They bring nothing to the table except pictures of themselves trying to look cool and 'edgy'. All superficial bull shit.
They are the teenage girls, annoyed by their fathers.
Virtually none of these people are “in the First Amendment business”. That’s not what they do, and they’re very forthright about not doing it. So what’s the point of holding them to a standard they’ve dropped?
“But,” one might say, “they still refer to their field as journalism. So …?”
Our problem is we let them keep using “journalism” as their job description. We shouldn’t. Because if journalism involves investigation and digging for sources to reveal hidden truths, these people aren’t even doing “bad journalism”. They’re not doing journalism at all. What they’re doing is PR. Full stop. And at present this doesn’t apply only to little fish like this Tina, but all the way up the chain, to NYT and WaPo, who apparently think their job is to pass on memos from “unnamed sources” in the Deep State. “Write a few framing paragraphs, copy-paste the pronouncement from my connection over at DOJ, and I’m done. I did my journalism for the day.” “No, asshole. You just did a bit of easy-peasy PR. Which is what they pay you for.”
First Amendment? What role does the First Amendment play for people working in Public Relations? The answer is obvious: Zero. And these people all know it.
A journalist originally was someone who kept a journal and sold portions of it to a newspaper. Sometimes, he or his editor would take profits on the side through blackmail and/or PR. Dreiser writes about this in 19th century Chicago, which had many newspapers. The standards that everyone talks about were developed later. So to the extent that journalists are violating those standards, they can be seen as returning to journalism's roots.
Yes, certainly, the standards were developed later. But that doesn’t mean what we have now is a “return” to the “roots” you refer to. Rather what we have is something new. This is why I disagree with Ben’s characterization of these people as “hacks”. Sure, they’re hacks, in a way, but they’re oddly all parrotting and copy-pasting the same Narrative, in service to an overarching Blob. There is a combination of lockstep groupthink and shrill illogic that reaches from the little fish all the way up to the corporate outlets in real time, at the speed of clicks. And it’s increasingly hegemonic, and its groupthink is algorithmically reinforced. In short, this ain’t 19th c. Chicago.
Further, “journalism” in the 20th c. developed its own methods and ethics, and thus the word in a sense changed meaning. Clearly from the days of individuals selling parts of their journals. Since we still live under the aegis of those 20th c. developments, my claim is that we should verbally separate the recently crucial profession “journalism” from the PR influencers and fakes who now claim to be doing it but are not.
Disagree, with all due respect. Even hacks are protected by the First Amendment . . . whether they deserve it or not.
Yes, valid observation, but I’m approaching from a different corner. PR people are likewise protected, but their job description is such that they might not ever think about the fact. And logically so. Why would they? Likewise these particular “hacks” are at no risk of persecution because they reveal no hidden truth any state would want to persecute them for revealing. They are rather, as Chris keenly demonstrates, free associating and stringing phrases together. The “right” phrases.
It’s that bad. Ergo, they are not even quite hacks. At the low level of Tina, they’re something like TikTok “influencers”, but working in phrases rather than gestures and makeup style. At the higher level of cable “news” reporters, it’s similar, they’re influencers, but now more professionally PR. With WaPo, etc., they’re basically print PR.
I’m suggesting a strategy. Loudly denying them the name “journalists”, laughing when they claim to be working in that field, is a revelatory move. Some Americans, after all, still remember what a journalist was. There are no such creatures around today, certainly not in any corporately owned outlets. Many Americans will notice: “Hey, it’s true, these people *aren’t* journalists, are they? And they’re not even trying to be. Why is that?”
You initially wrote: "Tina, darling, you're in the First Amendment business. Maybe start acting like it." My comment wasn't to disagree, to imply that journalism isn't the First Amendment business or that the First Amendment is now no longer important. On the contrary. My comment was to offer a contrasting angle. That anyone in the US who calls herself a "journalist" can openly tar the First Amendment as a "right-wing trope" tells us something. Something we should use.
I'll give an analogy. Say you live in a town and you see the Fire Chief on TV claim that protective helmets and fireproof gear and boots are basically nonsense, that they are a "safetyist trope" that he and his team can dispense with. Bizarre, you think. Then you learn that when there's a fire in your town, the firefighters never try to enter the burning building, but gather on the street in front commenting on the fire and making hopeful talk about how the residents in that building will likely find a new place to live. "Ah," you say to yourself, "so this is why the Fire Chief can claim safety gear is just a trope. He doesn't even fucking fight the fires!"
This is akin to what we have with a class of self-described "journalists" who openly diss the First Amendment. They can only do so because they're not fucking doing their jobs, not by any stretch of the imagination. And the lack of journalism has become so entrenched that many of these people, many actually employed in the field, don't even realize that what they’re doing isn't journalism.
In the same way you in that town might decide to come out with an editorial unmasking your local fire department--"they don't even try to fight fires!"--we should have started awhile back to refuse to call these people journalists.
But should we call them "PR influencers" or just "PR"?
You can easily replace "journalists/firefighters" with "teachers" or "police" in many places, without losing anything.
To quote a colleague, a junior teacher who started the same year I empathetically quit:
"To be neutral or objective as a teacher is to pick the enemy's side!"
We had more trouble communicating despite being of the same people, than I've had with afghans or syrians fresh off the boat.
I remember it was a thing in school (early seventies) for someone to make like they were going to punch or slap you, stopping short of actually making contact, and when you shouted for them to stop (i am a girl, not a punching type), they would say, "it's a free country" as their "defense"
Always wondered where that mindset came from; I guess they were practicing for these times.
Same people. Same sense of humour.
What passes as journalism in America today has nothing to do with the first amendment.
That is as may be. But it is protected just the same. You're not required to like it and neither am I. What would be your alternative?
I don’t dispute anyone’s right to freely express their opinion (at least that used to be a right in this country). I just don’t think we should equate journalism today with promoting or defending the first amendment. IMHO what it is about today is shutting down and/or denying that right to most people.
Which is a betrayal of the ethics of journalism. Which is why I’m suggesting we unmask these people. They’re not journalists and aren’t trying to be. They aren’t paid to be. They’d be fired for doing actual journalism.
🗨 genre-defining journalists
Ok, so let’s define the genre then. A prompt: it’s treacly to TPT[shouldn’t]B, smelly to many else, and it comes out of the back end of male bovine.
Or on the pattern of ‘country music = three chords and the truth’, this soi-disant élite journalism = a slew of hackneyed -ist & -phobe libel labels and umpteen blatant lies.
These are booooring! 😝
she's just parroting the narrative. She got the marching papers from her editors, and did what she was told. She believes every word, no doubt about that, but she cares little about the 1st ammendment. She knows that shes in the protected class, and censorship is not a fear. If the tables turned and her narrative became "dangerous misinformation", shed be screaming like a banshee about her rights. People of her ilk fail to realize that somehow, and trying to explain that to her would be fruitless.
If you're entertaining such an expectation, it's time to let it go. Hell, it's long past time to even mourn what these people have become.
"Free speech, that right-wing trope."
That certainly jumped out at me.
You ever notice how much the truth frightens these trolls?
Every waking minute, all day, every day.
Truth is a crucifix to these vampiric beings. They are of their father...
It's upsetting because speaking the truth costs next to nothing, while the censorship machine requires constant manhours and money.
Lol I thought that said man whores.....🤣same diff
When you tell the truth, you
Do not control the outcome.
Wouldn’t it be ironic when the outcome of all this insidious censorship from the top down...doesn’t control the outcome? If the public they mean to control catches on and ,,,rebels? Could we be witnessing the slow burn?
Clearly, speaking the truth is very costly, as the truth could damage their hold on power. The cost of censorship is worth it if you're evil.
Methinks the machine would prefer "personhours and CBDC."
There's another danger to their mollycoddled careers, a grave one they're too dimwitted to see.
💬 They recite the expected noises. And they’re useless.
Perfect candidates to be replaced by chatGPT lookalikes.
I would not be surprised to learn that one or more of these supposed journalists is ChatGPT under a pseudonym with an AI-generated photo as the avatar. If their publication is actually paying real humans to write this nonsense, it' a total waste of money, since these supposed journalists already write like an AI chatbot anyway.
Nah, I'm sceptical: would expect irksomely copious giveaways to pepper their servings, the wonder-clones of 'it's important to remember/recognise/acknowledge', 'complex and multifaceted', or 'I was designed to provide accurate and reliable information...' Oops, gone overboard with the last one. Prolly, not sure 🤭
none of the people who demonize tucker carlson have ever watched his show. i'm willing to bet on that. when i finally did watch him, i was stunned. he was not at all what i had been led to expect and everything he had to say was eminently reasonable. he IS correct- you DO know the truth when you hear it, no matter how simply it's packaged and you DO know a lie when you're being fed a whopper no matter how much sauce is on the bun.
The Left always holds up the boogeyman- and prays that people won’t listen for themselves. 30+ years ago when my husband and I were dating he was listening to this guy named Rush, who I knew with the certainty of a 20-something gal was a misogynist, idiot, and all around evil person. (Ah, the 20s...) He challenged me to listen to one hour of one show one time and then he’d stop talking about it if I didn’t like it. Well of course I did it, with sufficient martyrdom and attitude, so he would just stfu. (Amazing he married me, really!) And guess what? Shockingly, Rush wasn’t any of those things - and to my credit I did admit it. I didn’t drive enough to be a regular listener (I only listen to the radio when driving since I can’t seem to pay attention otherwise.) But most of what Rush said, especially in the early days, proved correct. And he certainly wasn’t all the things he was painted as being.
Tucker is, I think, even more courageous than Rush because our times are definitely more... insane. Evil. Dangerous. We need these fearless voices - here on SubStack, on the air, online. We don’t have to agree with everything they say all the time - unlike the progressives who can’t ever disagree and probably use the same toothpaste for fear of being outed. We need that “modern right wing trope” more than ever.
This happened during Covid with my brother who lives in NY and is married to a hyper liberal CNN/MSNBC junkie who probably still wears 6 or 7 layered masks when she comes in contact with another being.
He honestly couldn’t care less and just got vaccinated because it was the thing to do and it enabled him to go back to his gym.
I sent him a link to a Highwire podcast and it was as if the floodgates of reason opened before him. He said suddenly everything made sense to him. He went back and listened to every Highwire episode since the show began and became a regular donor. He’s had to change credit cards a few times due to nanny state monitoring.
Then he returned the favor by discovering Tucker Carlson and sending those links to me
I was thinking of Rush here, too! Like Tucker, he sure loved living rent-free in the nutjobs' heads.🤣
Tucker could fill a void left by Rush. 3 hours a day
Jesse Kelly fills that void. Tucker Carlson is great too, but I think they have differing skill sets, and Jesse Kelly's is closer to what Rush had with the radio format (although Rush did it with half his brain tied behind his back).
I certainly agree with that. What we have lost however, is the fact that Tucker reached beyond who could’ve been typified as his base. And there is something to seeing a person’s face as they speak to you that lends credibility. I just listened to Buck Sexton and Megyn Kelly speak about the fact that fox may have to bring him back. His contract remains in effect and their losses are humongous.
Jennings, I love your comment and needed to go above and beyond just the "like" button.
Using upspeak and vocal fry: "The subtext of the video was clear to the 13 million-plus people who watched it and read about it..."'
13 million? How about 76.5 million! Bwahaha!
The Regime wants you bad people, (you MFers know who you are!), that we forced Tucker out. You must bear witness to the sacrificial firing and symbolic media crucifixion of Tucker, which was his own damn fault for defying and ridiculing his august diaperness, President Mannequin and his highly credentialed corps of political prostitutes / sexually conflicted sociopathic misfits. Of course Tucker is the personification of normal Americans, we took psychology at Harvard. Duh. You people hate us for being so ...awesome, yeah awesome, and so symbolically we are crucifying you. So take that. We are contracting with our crack team of schlock propaganda shills from outlets that nobody knows, watches, or believes to get the threats out and show everyone how petty we are... I mean triumphant in our righteousness. You better not get any ideas bub, because we can get to you too. And don’t try any of that meme stuff. You see where that’ll get you- the big house. We have judges on speed dial and on the payroll..You punks are gonna learn. We destroy all who oppose the new world odor, or at least we annoy the hell out of them. We also destroy everything else we touch , but we’re not going there right now, so drop it. We are done with this whole Constitution and free election thing, whatever that is. From now on, it’s our way or maybe you spend a weekend locked in the ABC green room with Michelle Obama and the hosts of The View , who will supervise a 48 hour marathon DEI struggle session and make you repeat “our forever First Lady” over and over again until your gums bleed. How would you like that? ....That’s what we thought.
Somebody buy this man a drink!
Lol. I'd pay to sit between you and "clever pseudonym", with my mouth taped shut, on a transatlantic flight, just for the entertainment.
That’s very specific, Ryan. Lol
Is Tina Nguyen too stupid to realize that her entire article serves to reinforce the part of Tucker’s video that she directly quoted — the bit about there not being many places left where you can still find Americans saying true things? Were her editors at Puck too dumb to realize that? Or do they think their *readers* are the ones too stupid to notice?
Whatever the case, being a left-wing griftwriter has to be the world’s easiest job. In fact, would anyone here be surprised if you found out Nguyen had ChatGPT generate this bucket of slop?
Love your handle. Did you know there's really not an antonym for defenestrate?
I believe it's the only word in the English language without an antonym.
That and refried.
Good call
Well, there are at least dozens. We have disdain, but not dain; we have depilate, but not pilate; dishevelled, but not shevelled …
This makes me disgruntled.
There are antonyms for all those.
Not sure those are antonyms, so far defenestrate and refried are the winners. The losers are Puck and that writer for Puck, which and who are the antonyms for "clear" and "headed".
Yes she is.
The two paragraphs about the grainy video are supposed to align Carlson with Trump and the January 6 event, I bet.
My first thought was that she must be implying that Leni Riefenstahl was Tucker’s camera operator, but Tina thinks that was a character on Laverne and Shirley.
I am doing my best Tucker Giggle right now. That is too funny.
For the record, I will never be tired of hearing you talk about Tucker Carlson :)
“using the rhetoric of free speech, that modern right wing trope”
There’s a lot of sadness in my life right now, but this just brought me a smile
Freedom of speech is a 'right-wing trope'?
When and where did the wheels fall off?
It's getting harder and harder to not think we either need a civil war or find an amicable split.
There's nothing to bridge anymore. I want to do with people who think this way.
They want us to feel helpless so we lash out.
I fear people are going to have to fall on really hard times before they wake-up.
The danger of hard times, is its hard to bite the hand that feeds.
The only safeguards left in America seem to be federalism and 2A.
Even the law has become an instrument of illegality.
I think your chances are better down here JD
Well, the chances of finding a like-minded community are greater in the USA for sure given the population. But to be quite frank, the USA is barely better than Canada. NONE of this shit should be happening in America. At all. I really don't know which country is worse at the moment. I see lotsa pros and cons.
Regardless, it shouldn't be happening.
All I can say is Florida is free. You can literally smell it in the air.
I read somewhere that a federal judge ruled that state/local 2A protections were unconstitutional. The ruling occurred a month ago.
They are indeed trying to provoke a violent responses se to their outrages.
Bullies of any size are never looking for a reason, only an excuse.
Don't know about you but I've ended up in brawls caused by the never-out-of-style-excuse: "Why you lookin'at me for?!"
Ain't no right answer when the other guy is spoiling for a fight. Either leg it or lay him out without talking.
I had a friend who was blessed with good looks and the physique of a Greek god, not even exaggerating. Didn't even try. He quit going to bars because every time he did, some dumbass would pick a fight with him. He was actually a very kind, gentle man, (he became a missionary), but he'd grudgingly clock them and drop them just so they'd shut up.
Some people... Friend of mine is a security guard, moonlighting as a bouncer. He's got some nice anecdotes.
"Do you know who I am?" is his favourite when he's tending the door at some joint or club. Anyone says that, he puts them in a choke-hold and the other guard calls for back-up (doormen/bouncers always work in pairs here, with at least 2-3 guys as back-up or working the locale itself).
The one incident he's got at his no.1 spot was at the local college when he was assigned to guard the side of a building (a huge elongated monstrosity of modern architecture).
It's built facing the ocean, and has a facade of heavy sheets of glass. This time, one of those had fallen onto the sidewalk to thatside of the building was cordoned off - the sheets weigh tons.
And he has to be on his toes he realises because the PhDs, the lecturers and the professors just flat out ignore the tape, the signs and everything.
When stopped, many of them responded with "That doesn't apply to me, do you expect me to walk around to the otherside and use the students' entrance?!"
Friend was apoplectic, but it sure cured any respect he had for academics.
100% agree they are trying to provoke. Which then serves as predicate for further clampdowns and further efforts to provoke. That's their MO.
Heck any non-approved speech is violence to these jihadists.
My take atm is support and enthuse with like minded folks online. We patriots need each other. Do not waste your energy trying to convince NPCs. And especially do not talk up violence or civil war. That's just chum for the ICs.
Agree 100%. Find, support, and encourage like-minded people.
Media and social media is trying to advanve the narrative that we are an isolated band howling in the wind, but there are far more of us than they're letting on. Demoralization is a huge part of their plan.
David -
I agree. We are going to need to organize imo.
Chiefly to help all the "sleep-walkers" to wake-up. There are not enough of us paying attention.
Covid is a perfect example:
Part of the behavioral dynamics was to make the resistors appear as "disruptors", to fill them with "rage" and to isolate/silence them by virtue of social tyranny.
So this is a double edge sword. The longer people are lulled to sleep the more isolated we become. The danger of sleep walking is apathy. It is always the last mile to bondage.
I think we will "defeat" the Globalist, et al, in the end (and pick up the proverbial trash when it's over), but we do not get there without "megaphone's" for like minded folks.
Anne M. Roper asks a very important question pertinent to organizing and waking the sleep-walkers:
Why should/would they want to know more?
There must be a tangible, concrete "Why" relating to their everyday life.
Why should they care, when their bellies are full, they have a roof over their head and live a leisurely life their great-grand parents for the most part couldn't have been able to imagine?
For those far enough gone, being directly affected themselves isn't even enough.
You nailed it.
I think history reveals the "why". I've been trying my best to explain tangible events in history where the current dynamics are eerily similar.
They will always dredge up a villain. That’s all the media knows how to do.
The two-minute hate is a very powerful thing. It not only focuses the soldiers, it also forges solidarity where there should be none. It's the ramp that makes escalation to the next level a simple task.
"None of it means anything at all."
If we looked at it from a certain angle, meaning could be extracted from it. It's just that not all meaningful pictures are pretty.
When a people draw a bead on a big, blurry (to them) target, and shout DEVIL, DEVIL, DEVIL, there are several possible reasons for that, but the Razor suggests a carrot of advantage coupled with a stick of exile.
That's a potent combo. But I think the meaning of it can be found in the refusal to look at the object in question. Carlson is like Medusa or Sodom; a dreaded direction that's more frightening than a subject with known qualities. The same could be said of vax injuries, or Ukraine, or their coming job obsolescence, or a hundred directions that they are forbidden to look because they'll turn to stone or salt. As these forbidden sights pile up, the coerced blindness eventually drives them mad. In this light all talk of lunatics in bunkers becomes IMAX projection and weird autobiography.
You are darkly alluding to the vapid duty-dance of shallow lefty minds. If this were a video, it would be GRAINY. GRAINY, I tell you!
But if they point and yell loud enough, they might get promoted!! As it is they're just another voice in the echo chamber.
Well, she did meet Hitler, I mean Tucker once, and faced him down, surviving his *swallows and looks around* right-wing, extremist humor. That's got to be good for something, right? I smell hazard pay in her future.
🗨 Turning and turning in the widening gyre / The falcon cannot hear the falconer 🤷
Things fall apart! (As indeed they must; the elites are waging war on Reality itself, and the costs of their foolish war are escalating rapidly.)
🗨 And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? 😟😨
I think this rough beast's hour has, indeed, come round at last. The mere anarchy and blood-dimmed tide being loosed upon the world have awakened it from its 20 centuries of stony sleep.
The very time for us to rush touch grass I guess 😁
The funny thing, as I read that story from Ms. Nguyen, I can hear Tucker's tone, and he's joking.
I think we need to start putting antipsychotics in the Smart Water. Would that help?
Careful what you wish for, that's an idea that's been floated around for a decade or more now.
Utilitarian thinkers have argued that by adding anti-depressants and calming chemicals to the tap-water in major cities, violent crime and civil unrest could be virtually eliminated, especially if comibined with free (read: tax funded but privately owned) dispensaries for such chemicals.