I got in a Twitter argument with Former New York Times Labor Reporter Steven Greenhouse where he repeatedly called me a Putin apologist for not buying into the mass hysteria his former paper is promoting and made sure to put me in league with Carlson. These people know exactly what they are doing and it is insidious.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, anyone who said things that the establishment doesn't like was accused of being in league with Jews. No evidence needed. Because Jews.
Today's establishment does the same thing, only this time with Russia, which somehow makes everything OK!
Note how Jews were simultaneously portrayed as socialist revolutionaries and as congenital capitalists. Russia is depicted as Stalinist for a right-wing audience and as fascist theocratic when the audience are liberals.
Funny things is, now anyone who said things that the establishment doesn't like is accused of being against the Jews. No evidence needed. Because Jews.
The good news here is that fewer and fewer people tune into this garbage. The bad news is that those who do are totally brainwashed and vote accordingly.
What impresses me is the much-needed anti-war message that Tucker Carlson puts out on his own network, which is much more geared to the likes of a Shaun Hannity. Carlson at the very least hosts opposition voices like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore speaking up for Julian Assange, which is certainly more than CNN or MSNBC ever did.
Is Carlson odious? Not in the admittedly few segments I've watched. In a world of Brian Seltzers and Anderson Coopers, I'm glad he's there, doing what he's doing on a mainstream platform. I may be wrong given more information.
If anyone should register as foreign agents it should be the noxious lobbyists of AIPAC, the moneyed Israeli lobby every candidate traitorously debases themselves in front of every four years.
In a world where even Amy Goodman and Neil Young have guzzled the Kool Aid, it's not surprising that our media sounds exactly like it does. It could not exist otherwise.
I approve of people who talk sense, issue by issue. That puts Carlson, Matt Gaetz, Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard on my side re Assange, Carlson also re Ukraine and Russiagate. Don't know about the others. Heard a podcast the other day with Douglas Macgregor, a Trump appointee, who also made good sense. Party lines make no sense at all anymore.
Carlson is not "odious." He's one of a very small handful of journalists who've stood for the homeowners (during the 2008 bank assault) and he's stood for Assange. In my humble opinion, that makes him incredibly courageous!
You can appreciate what the TV man exposes, such as the rape of the homeowners in '08, standing with Assange and the nonsense of the vaccines, without believing everything that comes out of his mouth.
What other MSM commentator has done the above? The only one I know was Dylan Ratigan and TPTB made damn sure he retired his microphone.
Carlson says some true things I agree with sometimes. So does any pundit on CNN or MSNBC, they just say different truths and different lies. That's how propaganda works; you can't say all false things all the time or no one will believe the propaganda. If you base your worldview on what Tucker Carlson says then your worldview will be just as distorted and power-serving as that of any CNN watcher. The TV man is not your friend.
No one ever said we believe everything that comes out of Carlson's mouth. However, that being said, I find Maddow far more odious than Carlson.
I guess what I appreciate is that Carlson has not towed the line with BigPharma and Wallstreet. Exposing those 2 things, IMHO, is courageous. Exposing Wallstreet crimes has put cement shoes on a few people.
Ah, yes, the "liberals." Does anyone else remember when "liberal" meant "open to new ideas and opinions"? Now liberal is a swear word in my dictionary.
They have now changed the definition to mean "We oppose new ideas, especially when it conflicts with the neoliberal 1%." They are the ODIOUS people now.
Specific end? I think those who can afford it are considering the rest of us not much more than wildlife in desperate need of being culled and managed, and by various increments are ensuring our legal systems permit them to test and refine the idea around the world.
I also think *everyone* who can afford it is stained by it, and I see no heroes among them, only carefully constructed mainstream illusions of care and curiosity to cover foregone conclusions for power.
We don't happen to have a vaccine for that kicking around, do we?
I can just remember the McCarthy Un-American purges in the 1950's which caused a serious level of chaos but which eventually were seen for what they were. Fanatical over-reactions.
Enter 2022.
This has the same smell but with the irrational behaviour and allegiances of US politicians, the climate is far more dangerous fifty years later. Sadly, with the opportunity for Americans only to have had a choice between a Biden or a Trump, one could be excused for again imagining what a level of independence in future candidates could produce, those not aligned (controlled) by the machines, (both parties as bad as each other) and not funded by an Israeli (foreign) lobby group aiming for a future control over policy. "We own America" So said Sharon. How right he was and still is.
Hard to understand how this nasty climate has all come about. The only solution is being party free, independent, restricted in electoral funding and truly representing the opinion and wishes of voters, not money men and foreigners. I seriously doubt if there are 20 politicians in America who could say that they are not controlled by some lobby, somewhere.
If they can censor, threaten and abuse anyone who doesn’t trust a pharmaceutical government alliance, and force people to adhere to mandates and notions that have no scientific basis, right in plain sight, whilst the laptop liberal left cheers with teeth-grinding-bloodthirsty enthusiasm….. they can and will do far worse to those that stand against war or any other insanity they can cook up to save their capitalist/fascist dumpster fire dystopia.
They threatened and abused anyone who didn't trust the Wallstreet/government cabal that stole 18 million American homes during the 2008 Bank heist. Many from both parties called the homeowners "deadbeats."
That was exactly when I knew our government was a POS that only stood for the 1%. I'm just glad more people are waking up to what a shithole "America" truly is. Maybe now we can begin overthrowing these MIC POS.
It is eerily fascinating to watch how readily these politicians throw their old soldiers and sycophants under the bus. It is an indictment of a lot of reactionary ideology that empire will reward those who follow it.
Ce que l'on a pu voir ces derniers jours à propos de la baisse d'écoute et du départ de Jeff Zucker de CNN, laisse à pensé que ce n'est peut être le premier domino à tomber et certains méddias essaient maintenant de parlé de l'autre coté de la bouche. Leur sauce ne prend plus, peu de gens les écoutes, mais leur plan démoniaque continue d'avancé malgré le mur qui se profil devant. Que les va-ten-guerres continuent ou qu'ils arrêtent ils sont cuits et comme un bandit qui a juré de ne jamais allé en prison et pris au piège, il provoquera un maximum de dégat avant de tombé. C'est un moment très dangereux ou plus aucune logique ne tienne.
When I make the rather innocent comment that Carlson is like a broken clock (only right twice a day, see Amazon and US foreign policy) to my liberal leaning friends, they wretch in indignity. Like a simple acknowledging of him simply questioning US foreign policy is a bridge I dare not cross. If one does, it is giving the man any semblance of credit.
Here's the problem: I wish I could give ANY talking head credit for the times their "clock is broken" commentary. The rare moments where it occurs (Fareed Zakaria on US military spending; Kat Timpf on her stance to legalize marijuana, for example) are so etched in my brain, it's like a beacon to us... "yes, yes, YES!!! You can do your jobs"!
The issue is that it comes and goes without a trace. Into the ether of the American Empire narrative that is a propogandized machine to pit left vs right, when the real fight in this country is top vs bottom. When Americans ( and any other Western affiliated countries) understand this fight, it can make for substantial change in our society.
Carlson being targeted as a right winger who cant always be trusted to spout the govt's msm narrative. He alliws dissenting voices on his show like Jimmy Dore. Dore persuaded Carlson and by dint milions of viewers that Julian Asange is a hero not guilty of any crimes and Biden should drop extradition demands immeduately. He has also had Jimmy on denouncing mandatory vaccinations and ridiculing Howard Stern's claims that he is afraid to go out because of the "unvaxed". Setting Carlson up early in case he lets Dore and others on to challenge US military policy. Brian Stelter a journalist? I don't t think so.
Caitlin, why do you call Tucker Carlson "odious?" Such language shuts down communications and makes cooperation impossible. You wrote, "...it works very much in the US empire's favor to have a bunch of influential narrative managers aggressively manufacturing the consensus that anyone who criticizes America's posture toward Russia is suspicious and untrustworthy." Is that not exactly what you are doing when you call Carlson "odious?" You say Tucker Carlson, "serves their agendas more often than not," and cite an article where you criticize him for hosting an anti-China hawk, but in the same article you praise Pelosi and McGovern's criticism of Trump for "failing" to protect violent Hong Kong protesters. A bit of a contradiction. All the propaganda about China should be rejected, from both Tucker's guest and the Democrats.
Do you think the US has been needlessly stirring up trouble in Ukraine for over 8 years? I think Tucker agrees with that. Why not work with him instead of calling him names? Dennis Kucinich was willing to work with Ron Paul and Walter Jones. I think they should have cooperated much more. You were once "smeared" as being "alt-right," because you were willing to communicate with people similar to Tucker Carlson. What happened? Have you been cowed?
All that said, your last paragraph implies a question, "It's clear that it is very, very important to the narrative managers that we believe what we are told about Russia. Now we're just waiting to find out toward what specific end that agenda is being driven." Permit me to answer. The narrative is that Russia is a belligerent bully with very little real power that was preparing to bully Ukraine by invading it. The big bad US stood up to Russia and told it in no uncertain terms that such an invasion would result in serious consequences. Now, when Russia does not invade Ukraine, which it never intended to do, Biden and Boris will claim that as a mighty victory that they achieved by standing firm (having learned the lesson of Munich). We're just waiting to find out whether gullible American voters will swallow that rather than recognizing January, 2020, as a month of humiliation for US foreign/military policy, a month when Europe stood up and said, "No!." Just to be clear, I welcome the humiliation.
I call him odious because he is odious. If you watch his show and believe the things he says you're just as MSM brainwashed as CNN viewers, you're just brainwashed in different ways. The TV man is not your friend. Stopped reading at "you praise Pelosi and McGovern's criticism of Trump for 'failing' to protect violent Hong Kong protesters." That never happened. Re-read and try again.
My apology. You are correct that you didn't praise Pelosi and McGovern. I was quickly looking for references to Carlson and was confused by your comment, "This is the guy that American progressives still say can be moved to the left? Hilarious." I took that to imply you liked the Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act and that it would be a "move to the left" for him to support it. You in fact criticize the Democrats for trying to move Trump to a hawkish position several paragraphs previously, which is more in keeping with our repeated criticism of war-mongering. I should have been more careful.
I stand by my position that we should be willing to support people we privately think are "odious" on issues with which we agree. I don't agree with Bryan Dean Wright's characterization of China, and I think Carlson could have asked more probing questions, but things Carlson has said that are critical of what's been going on in Ukraine are certainly not "odious," and your label helps to discredit those things we might agree with. I used to dislike Carlson very much, but he has changed over the past 20 years. I don't know when that change occurred, but Tucker Carlson in 2020 is far different from the Tucker Carlson of 2002. And no, I'm not a "brainwashed" corporate media watcher. That's why I'm here.
Just do a search on his name plus "China" and you will quickly see that Carlson is allowed to be critical of the escalations against Russia because he is responsible for manufacturing support for cold war escalations against China. He's doing the same thing as liberal pundits, advancing the exact same agenda on behalf of the exact same power structure, just focusing on a different area than they are. You really think this guy would be allowed the most popular news show in America, in the Murdoch press no less, if he were not an imperial propagandist? Come on now. He changed his presentation because that's what was required of him in a war-weary nation, not because he magically ceased being a propagandist.
I got in a Twitter argument with Former New York Times Labor Reporter Steven Greenhouse where he repeatedly called me a Putin apologist for not buying into the mass hysteria his former paper is promoting and made sure to put me in league with Carlson. These people know exactly what they are doing and it is insidious.
Biden just restated that the entire Latin America is US "front yard" (it is no longer its back yard). We are ruled by imperialist idiots
"Prove you're NOT a Russian agent, citizen!"
Once upon a time, not so long ago, anyone who said things that the establishment doesn't like was accused of being in league with Jews. No evidence needed. Because Jews.
Today's establishment does the same thing, only this time with Russia, which somehow makes everything OK!
Note how Jews were simultaneously portrayed as socialist revolutionaries and as congenital capitalists. Russia is depicted as Stalinist for a right-wing audience and as fascist theocratic when the audience are liberals.
Funny things is, now anyone who said things that the establishment doesn't like is accused of being against the Jews. No evidence needed. Because Jews.
Soros: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-tucker-carlson-s-anti-soros-crusade-is-a-clear-danger-for-american-jews-1.10576543
Covid Vax: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-vaccine-nazi-experiments-fox-news_n_61eba042e4b03c2b084a5426
Illegal Immigration: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-adl-jonathan-greenblatt-white-supremacy-replacement_n_6070cc91c5b6616dcd781f19
The original aggrievement industrialists have not relinquished the game in its entirety to the woke, apparently.
Thank you. Yes, I forgot Carlson's anti-vaxx stance in my post. That is yet another reason he's not "odious."
The good news here is that fewer and fewer people tune into this garbage. The bad news is that those who do are totally brainwashed and vote accordingly.
What impresses me is the much-needed anti-war message that Tucker Carlson puts out on his own network, which is much more geared to the likes of a Shaun Hannity. Carlson at the very least hosts opposition voices like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore speaking up for Julian Assange, which is certainly more than CNN or MSNBC ever did.
Is Carlson odious? Not in the admittedly few segments I've watched. In a world of Brian Seltzers and Anderson Coopers, I'm glad he's there, doing what he's doing on a mainstream platform. I may be wrong given more information.
If anyone should register as foreign agents it should be the noxious lobbyists of AIPAC, the moneyed Israeli lobby every candidate traitorously debases themselves in front of every four years.
In a world where even Amy Goodman and Neil Young have guzzled the Kool Aid, it's not surprising that our media sounds exactly like it does. It could not exist otherwise.
I approve of people who talk sense, issue by issue. That puts Carlson, Matt Gaetz, Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard on my side re Assange, Carlson also re Ukraine and Russiagate. Don't know about the others. Heard a podcast the other day with Douglas Macgregor, a Trump appointee, who also made good sense. Party lines make no sense at all anymore.
Carlson is not "odious." He's one of a very small handful of journalists who've stood for the homeowners (during the 2008 bank assault) and he's stood for Assange. In my humble opinion, that makes him incredibly courageous!
She had to say odious so Dems will read the column.
Yes, yes the TV man is your friend. He tells you the truth about everything, including China, capitalism, and the United States of America.
You can appreciate what the TV man exposes, such as the rape of the homeowners in '08, standing with Assange and the nonsense of the vaccines, without believing everything that comes out of his mouth.
What other MSM commentator has done the above? The only one I know was Dylan Ratigan and TPTB made damn sure he retired his microphone.
Carlson says some true things I agree with sometimes. So does any pundit on CNN or MSNBC, they just say different truths and different lies. That's how propaganda works; you can't say all false things all the time or no one will believe the propaganda. If you base your worldview on what Tucker Carlson says then your worldview will be just as distorted and power-serving as that of any CNN watcher. The TV man is not your friend.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/689969/tucker-carlson-tried-join-cia
No one ever said we believe everything that comes out of Carlson's mouth. However, that being said, I find Maddow far more odious than Carlson.
I guess what I appreciate is that Carlson has not towed the line with BigPharma and Wallstreet. Exposing those 2 things, IMHO, is courageous. Exposing Wallstreet crimes has put cement shoes on a few people.
Ah, yes, the "liberals." Does anyone else remember when "liberal" meant "open to new ideas and opinions"? Now liberal is a swear word in my dictionary.
They have now changed the definition to mean "We oppose new ideas, especially when it conflicts with the neoliberal 1%." They are the ODIOUS people now.
I'm not a dem and I read her columns. I also point out when we disagree, as I can't think of any opinion-maker with whom I agree 100%.
Specific end? I think those who can afford it are considering the rest of us not much more than wildlife in desperate need of being culled and managed, and by various increments are ensuring our legal systems permit them to test and refine the idea around the world.
I also think *everyone* who can afford it is stained by it, and I see no heroes among them, only carefully constructed mainstream illusions of care and curiosity to cover foregone conclusions for power.
We don't happen to have a vaccine for that kicking around, do we?
I expected more from us all.
I can just remember the McCarthy Un-American purges in the 1950's which caused a serious level of chaos but which eventually were seen for what they were. Fanatical over-reactions.
Enter 2022.
This has the same smell but with the irrational behaviour and allegiances of US politicians, the climate is far more dangerous fifty years later. Sadly, with the opportunity for Americans only to have had a choice between a Biden or a Trump, one could be excused for again imagining what a level of independence in future candidates could produce, those not aligned (controlled) by the machines, (both parties as bad as each other) and not funded by an Israeli (foreign) lobby group aiming for a future control over policy. "We own America" So said Sharon. How right he was and still is.
Hard to understand how this nasty climate has all come about. The only solution is being party free, independent, restricted in electoral funding and truly representing the opinion and wishes of voters, not money men and foreigners. I seriously doubt if there are 20 politicians in America who could say that they are not controlled by some lobby, somewhere.
It is the norm today.
If they can censor, threaten and abuse anyone who doesn’t trust a pharmaceutical government alliance, and force people to adhere to mandates and notions that have no scientific basis, right in plain sight, whilst the laptop liberal left cheers with teeth-grinding-bloodthirsty enthusiasm….. they can and will do far worse to those that stand against war or any other insanity they can cook up to save their capitalist/fascist dumpster fire dystopia.
They threatened and abused anyone who didn't trust the Wallstreet/government cabal that stole 18 million American homes during the 2008 Bank heist. Many from both parties called the homeowners "deadbeats."
That was exactly when I knew our government was a POS that only stood for the 1%. I'm just glad more people are waking up to what a shithole "America" truly is. Maybe now we can begin overthrowing these MIC POS.
Anyone interested?
It is eerily fascinating to watch how readily these politicians throw their old soldiers and sycophants under the bus. It is an indictment of a lot of reactionary ideology that empire will reward those who follow it.
Ce que l'on a pu voir ces derniers jours à propos de la baisse d'écoute et du départ de Jeff Zucker de CNN, laisse à pensé que ce n'est peut être le premier domino à tomber et certains méddias essaient maintenant de parlé de l'autre coté de la bouche. Leur sauce ne prend plus, peu de gens les écoutes, mais leur plan démoniaque continue d'avancé malgré le mur qui se profil devant. Que les va-ten-guerres continuent ou qu'ils arrêtent ils sont cuits et comme un bandit qui a juré de ne jamais allé en prison et pris au piège, il provoquera un maximum de dégat avant de tombé. C'est un moment très dangereux ou plus aucune logique ne tienne.
When I make the rather innocent comment that Carlson is like a broken clock (only right twice a day, see Amazon and US foreign policy) to my liberal leaning friends, they wretch in indignity. Like a simple acknowledging of him simply questioning US foreign policy is a bridge I dare not cross. If one does, it is giving the man any semblance of credit.
Here's the problem: I wish I could give ANY talking head credit for the times their "clock is broken" commentary. The rare moments where it occurs (Fareed Zakaria on US military spending; Kat Timpf on her stance to legalize marijuana, for example) are so etched in my brain, it's like a beacon to us... "yes, yes, YES!!! You can do your jobs"!
The issue is that it comes and goes without a trace. Into the ether of the American Empire narrative that is a propogandized machine to pit left vs right, when the real fight in this country is top vs bottom. When Americans ( and any other Western affiliated countries) understand this fight, it can make for substantial change in our society.
Carlson being targeted as a right winger who cant always be trusted to spout the govt's msm narrative. He alliws dissenting voices on his show like Jimmy Dore. Dore persuaded Carlson and by dint milions of viewers that Julian Asange is a hero not guilty of any crimes and Biden should drop extradition demands immeduately. He has also had Jimmy on denouncing mandatory vaccinations and ridiculing Howard Stern's claims that he is afraid to go out because of the "unvaxed". Setting Carlson up early in case he lets Dore and others on to challenge US military policy. Brian Stelter a journalist? I don't t think so.
Caitlin, why do you call Tucker Carlson "odious?" Such language shuts down communications and makes cooperation impossible. You wrote, "...it works very much in the US empire's favor to have a bunch of influential narrative managers aggressively manufacturing the consensus that anyone who criticizes America's posture toward Russia is suspicious and untrustworthy." Is that not exactly what you are doing when you call Carlson "odious?" You say Tucker Carlson, "serves their agendas more often than not," and cite an article where you criticize him for hosting an anti-China hawk, but in the same article you praise Pelosi and McGovern's criticism of Trump for "failing" to protect violent Hong Kong protesters. A bit of a contradiction. All the propaganda about China should be rejected, from both Tucker's guest and the Democrats.
Do you think the US has been needlessly stirring up trouble in Ukraine for over 8 years? I think Tucker agrees with that. Why not work with him instead of calling him names? Dennis Kucinich was willing to work with Ron Paul and Walter Jones. I think they should have cooperated much more. You were once "smeared" as being "alt-right," because you were willing to communicate with people similar to Tucker Carlson. What happened? Have you been cowed?
All that said, your last paragraph implies a question, "It's clear that it is very, very important to the narrative managers that we believe what we are told about Russia. Now we're just waiting to find out toward what specific end that agenda is being driven." Permit me to answer. The narrative is that Russia is a belligerent bully with very little real power that was preparing to bully Ukraine by invading it. The big bad US stood up to Russia and told it in no uncertain terms that such an invasion would result in serious consequences. Now, when Russia does not invade Ukraine, which it never intended to do, Biden and Boris will claim that as a mighty victory that they achieved by standing firm (having learned the lesson of Munich). We're just waiting to find out whether gullible American voters will swallow that rather than recognizing January, 2020, as a month of humiliation for US foreign/military policy, a month when Europe stood up and said, "No!." Just to be clear, I welcome the humiliation.
I call him odious because he is odious. If you watch his show and believe the things he says you're just as MSM brainwashed as CNN viewers, you're just brainwashed in different ways. The TV man is not your friend. Stopped reading at "you praise Pelosi and McGovern's criticism of Trump for 'failing' to protect violent Hong Kong protesters." That never happened. Re-read and try again.
My apology. You are correct that you didn't praise Pelosi and McGovern. I was quickly looking for references to Carlson and was confused by your comment, "This is the guy that American progressives still say can be moved to the left? Hilarious." I took that to imply you liked the Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act and that it would be a "move to the left" for him to support it. You in fact criticize the Democrats for trying to move Trump to a hawkish position several paragraphs previously, which is more in keeping with our repeated criticism of war-mongering. I should have been more careful.
I stand by my position that we should be willing to support people we privately think are "odious" on issues with which we agree. I don't agree with Bryan Dean Wright's characterization of China, and I think Carlson could have asked more probing questions, but things Carlson has said that are critical of what's been going on in Ukraine are certainly not "odious," and your label helps to discredit those things we might agree with. I used to dislike Carlson very much, but he has changed over the past 20 years. I don't know when that change occurred, but Tucker Carlson in 2020 is far different from the Tucker Carlson of 2002. And no, I'm not a "brainwashed" corporate media watcher. That's why I'm here.
Just do a search on his name plus "China" and you will quickly see that Carlson is allowed to be critical of the escalations against Russia because he is responsible for manufacturing support for cold war escalations against China. He's doing the same thing as liberal pundits, advancing the exact same agenda on behalf of the exact same power structure, just focusing on a different area than they are. You really think this guy would be allowed the most popular news show in America, in the Murdoch press no less, if he were not an imperial propagandist? Come on now. He changed his presentation because that's what was required of him in a war-weary nation, not because he magically ceased being a propagandist.