Knowledge Fight - #816: Tucker, The Man And His Twitter- Episode 1

Episode Date: June 12, 2023

Today, Dan and Jordan conduct a trial run of seeing how it feels to cover Tucker Carlson's new show on Twitter.  In this installment, Tucker covers Ukrainian dams, tautologies, and how the media doesn't care enough about UFOs.

I Ready Not not not knowledge fight Damn and Jordan I am sweating Knowledge fight is time to pray I have great respect for knowledge, mate. Knowledge, mate. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys. Chang-ee are the bad guys. Knowledge, mate.

Dan and Jordan, knowledge, mate. Need money. Need money. Andy and Panty. Andy and Panty. Stop it. Andy and Panty and Panty. Andy and Panty. Andy. It's time to pray. Andy and Panty, I'll share on the ear. Please hold it. And the end of the game Stop it and the end of the game Hands up and

And just don't pray and the end of the Sure, I'm here. Thanks for holding it. So Alex I'm a good friend. I'm a huge fan. I love your World knowledge fight Knowledge fight.com I love you. Hey everybody You welcome back knowledge fight. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. Welcome, dudes. I sit around. Where should

I put the altar of Sleen and talk a little bit about Alex Joe Oh indeed we are Dan Jordan I have a quick question for you. So what's your bright spot today buddy? My bright spot today Jordan is got a little bit of a zip Package from black dragon queen Christie. Oh, hey Christie. Oh, yeah, lovely Oh, hey, Christie. Oh, yeah. Lovely mini block, Lego kit of succulents. I got some little cacti and what have you,

I've not built this yet, I've not opened it up and I'm very excited. It's a great compromise of, you know, I love building little mini block stuff. Totally. It's plants that won't die. They won't die. Although succulents are the ones

that you don't have to water that much. So this is like taking the problem that doesn't exist with succulents. Because you could just leave a succulent forever. It will be fine. It's basically a Lego to begin with. But yeah, that's where it is. And it included a lighting kit, a Lego lighting kit that is, I have no idea how this thing is gonna work It's got like wires and and shit, but it's Lego brand it. Yeah, I don't know if it's a fake light. Yeah I have no idea what's going on But it looks really cool, and I'm excited to build it. So thank you so much, Kristi. Yeah, that's that is very cool Also came with a nice book how to talk to your cat about gun safety

That's important which I have not opened up to figure out if it's a joke book with a title of all the pages are blank, or if someone actually wrote a book about how to talk to your cat about gun. I mean, I don't know. That does seem like an interesting sequel to where to hide your guns. Not don't give it to your cat.

Don't give it to your cat. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's not where you hide it. See, that's why you have to write the second book because everybody was like, oh, whatever, I'll just give it to your cat. Don't give it to your cat, yeah, that's what I'm saying. That's not where you hide it. See, that's why you have to write the second book because everybody was like, oh, whatever, I'll just give it to my cat. Boom, that's where guns go. Hey, Salim, put this in your litter box, hide it. No, no, don't do it!

Oh, that's not how you talk to your cat. Yeah, thank you. Anyway, what's your bright spot? My bright spot, Dan, is that school is over. Oh, the summer. Yeah, I mean, it's perfectly out of winter today. Yeah, it is. Perfect time for summer break.

Yeah, absolutely, but no, my wife is free from the evil clutches of work. So a day to day nonsense. It's gonna be great. Hey, all right. It's gonna be great. We got time together. All of it. Exercise, watch. all right. It's gonna be great. We got tons of different, all of it.

Exercise, wow. Tennis, eating better, the whole thing. We're gonna do it all. Eating tennis rackets. If only. If only. We're gonna make them out of cotton candy. I'm gonna make you a tennis racket out of beef jerky.

A beef jerky tennis racket. Yep. All right. Are you goingky town is wrecking. Yep. All right. Are you going to weave it? Yes. Okay. It's just trying to think of the ways that you could do so. I've got no buttons to make, so I need a project.

All right, so you get the jerky for the, for the, the racket, right? You get the hard stuff, but then you gotta use the beef sticks for the netting. Do I? I mean, I would assume. Mm, this is a seat. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me,

that's what happens. That's fair. I mean, that wouldn't be the first time I've done either of those things. I haven't thought this through fully. I might use twizzlers. Okay. That's not show.

Now you're in trouble. You might be the outside and then twizzlers. Okay. That's not show. Now you're in trouble. Jockey might be the outside and then twizzlers for the net. Listen, salty and sweet or fine, but not with twizzlers in jerky. That's just not gonna happen. That's like chocolate and peanut butter. No, it's not. Those are the two worst textures to combine together in history. Yeah, they're pretty bad.

I recently saw a twizzlers commercial. Sure. And it was something like chew it over or something like that. Sure. Like that's the twigs slogan. The slogan. You guys just ripping off twigs. Ah, everybody who chew stuff, you got to take your time with it. Sooner or later, you say a chew it over. I was, I was inferior. It's a little disappointing.

That's dirty, man. I mean, I thought that was done whenever Big League chew did it. You know, Big League chew it over. But they didn't have a commercial that said that. Yeah, they weren't allowed to. Too close to tobacco. Mm-hmm. I feel like my parents didn't allow me to have

that or candy cigarettes. Yeah. You know, those were things that were very much, no, no, no. I'm not going to say that candy cigarettes led to me smoking, but I did enjoy candy cigarettes And then I also greatly enjoyed regular cigarettes So I mean, I mean, it's not unrelated I suppose Hmm, I think you did you did you just enjoy the gesticulating you could do with a candy cigarette?

Yeah, basically, and I think I did the same thing with a regular cigarette too. Yeah, I did you ever Did you ever try and light a candy cigarette? No Smart What? That's very smart of you Yeah, did you ever did you ever try and light a candy cigarette? What that's very smart of you. Well, I didn't even we was made out of chalk Wasn't it they were just garbage. I think they were like gum inside. Oh You had you had better candy cigarettes. I think they may have been different varieties of candy cigarettes I want to say that the ones we had were essentially chalk. What about wax lips? You ever fuck with wax lips? Never fuck with the wax lip in my life. Not once if I fucked with a wax lip and you can quote me on that. I will.

I'm not going down for any of this wax lip cancellation does a lot of rumors that Jordan Holmes is a man who's never done the wax lips the notorious wax lip Enjoyer. Oh no, no, and I get it. I understand why people do the wax lips. The notorious wax lip, enjoyer. No, no, no episode, I ended by saying we're going back to the past. Yes. And that was something that I was going to do. Yes. But I also felt a little bit of a draw towards doing something a little bit different.

Right. Novelty. Well, kind of. So for a long time, people have wanted us to branch out to cover other things and there aren't a whole lot of other things that really fit within the category of, you know, stuff that we can cover in a way that I think is in our, in our wheelhouse. Right. Right.

You know, there are folks like Tim Poole who are kind of an option sort of, but he's also like a shithead, cloud chasing trolley asshole, and I don't really care to engage with a lot of stuff like that. Right. Not to say that he's not somebody who shouldn't be, you know, monitored, or made attention to.

Sure. It's just maybe that's not what I find my abilities suited for. Right, all right. Project Kamalot is kind of a bummer lately. Jim Baker is a disaster. Gone. There's people like Russell Brand, but I don't know. Maybe, maybe he'll do an episode about him at some point, but in terms of like a regular

source of something to look at, I'm not sure that that's our lane. I feel like we come into an issue where finally we and our audience are at odds here, right? Okay, so when we do episodes about other people, our audience enjoys them, and the reason being is because we are making an enjoyable episode out of it, right? We do not enjoy it because it is not enjoyable. Well, so there's a little bit of a pushback there.

You know, there's a disconnect. I'm not sure. I think that that whether it's enjoyable for us is kind of really down the line of priorities because I mean, how enjoyable is it ever to really even talk about Alex? Not at all. We've got used to it in the way that other people maybe were not used to hearing. Yeah. But I think that there is a certain type of figure

that we are well equipped to discuss. And then there's figures that maybe our skill sets aren't designed towards. You know, someone like Tim Poole, I feel like you could end up in a situation where you want to scream at him on Twitter like you did with Greenwald. And that plays into like his whole thing. Sure. Because he's kind of trying to make people angry.

He's baiting and like, yeah, yeah, there's, there's a intentional strategy of like boosting engagement that comes along with that. And it's really transparent. Totally. He's doing. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, this is a long way of saying I decided that now that Tucker is away from Fox news.

I thought maybe we should try. We should give it a test balloon and see if we can apply our skills and our shit to his Twitter show. I mean, we had a slight conversation about this. Yeah, I told you we shouldn't do this. Wherein' you argued that we should definitely not do this. And you couched it in terms as though it's entirely my fault, which I'm fine with. I'm fine with that.

No, I couched it in terms of trying to save you from like what, you have sensitivities about people's voices. which I'm fine with. I'm fine with that. No, I counted in terms of trying to save you from, like what, like you have sensitivities about people's voices. I do, that's true. So like, you know, Trump or Tucker, they're kind of the people that like you get mad hearing them.

That's close to Alex, which you've gotten used to. Yeah, yeah, well, I will say this, all right. Here I think is why I am more willing to jump into that now than otherwise. Tucker doesn't have a boss anymore. That's what's important to me. The more I think about the thread that keeps people interesting, it's not having a boss. It's not having a boss. There is a ability to speak freely that can lead you towards making huge dumb mistakes. Pretty negative tendencies. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So, well, when I texted you, I said, you know, I'd been going down this road, just preparing an episode, but I didn't think we should do it. Because of, you know, it's going to be awful for you. And then also, it's just like, I don't know exactly if it works for us. And then also, it's like, I don't know exactly if it works for us. I just had some kind of like, I'm not sure. And that's part of the reason why, you know, want to try a test balloon.

So if it is. Let's see what we do. But yeah, you said, no, I think we should. I'm like, well, all right. Here we go. Here we go. This is what we do. I earned it.

I do not get to complain about it. That's what's important. So we're going to talk about the first episode of his Twitter show. And so it might be a little bit shorter of an episode than some of our other ones, because his episodes are only like 10 minutes long. What? Or so on Twitter. Yeah. Okay. It's just basically like what would have been his opening monologue. Yeah. Or whatever. Fascinating. And so I was going to do the first two episodes, because those are the ones that are out now at the time of recording. monologue or whatever, fascinating. And so I was gonna do the first two episodes

because those are the ones that are out now at the time of recording. But I figured, you know, we'll try out the first one if it works, we'll do the second one. We'll go from there. So let us know if you enjoy it and we'll find out. If you're hearing this, we did release the episode. Yeah.

So before we get down to this, Jordan, let's take a little moment to say hello to some new walk. Oh, that's a great idea. So first, Athena and her wife are not loser little titty babies. Thank you so much, you're an out-pullesy walk. I'm a policy walk. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next, Cult of Saline Merch when. Thank you so much, you're an out-pullesy walk. I'm a policy walk. Thank you very much. Next, I want to take a time out from thanking walks and make sure everyone knows I'm considered the Bret Hart of podcasting. Thank you so much. You're now a policy won. I'm a policy won Thank you very much. How dare you make me a compliment myself is is Brett a Brett hearts the good is the hitman Okay, the excellence of execution. All right. All right. All right. Yeah, one of the best

I'm all right. All right, but he's Canadian. I-I-I. Thank you very much. Thank you. And we have to take the credit to the mix Jordan. So thank you so much to exposive god. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat. I'm a policy walk. Fourth star. Go home, get in my mentality, you're brilliant.

Someone, someone, satanite, something to be a book in a poop. Daddy shark. Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. Jar Jar Binks has a Caribbean black action. He's a loser little, little kitty baby. I don't wanna hate black people. I renounce Jesus Christ. Thank you so much.

Yes, thank you very much. And I guess I should acknowledge right now that Alex, we'll cover on Wednesday his coverage of Trump being indicted again. Uh-huh. I know probably people are curious about that. We will get to that. All right.

This was something that I felt drawn to try and. Yeah. And, you know, if you wait too long, then he's on episode six or seven of his Twitter show. And by then, you know, who knows if it's time for this trial balloon. It's too late. Yeah.

Yeah. We can't jump in unless we're jumping in at the beginning. You know what, that's stupid, but that is exactly how I feel. Also, I mean, you're not wrong. Also, that's about it being stupid. But also, I feel a little bit excited about this, not least of which because this is the first time in 800 odd episodes where I genuinely can't say,

I really don't know anything about Tucker. I don't know anything about his show. I don't know anything about what he does. I try and avoid all of this as much as possible. As you said, I have a thing for voices. Anytime I hear it, I shut it off. So this is true to the original premise, Dan. Well, I mean, that's exciting. You don't know everything about Tucker. No, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I didn't do a ton of like, who is this man? Sure.

In this, but that's exploration for future episodes. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying, you know, if we continue down this road. Man, maybe we can get him a billion dollars. Give it time. Give it time. Yeah.

We don't work fast. No, it takes a while. There are results. We'll see you in seven plus years. So here is where the first episode jumps off. And I will say I was pretty impressed by how little time he has for pleasantries. Hey, it's Tucker Carlson. This morning it looks like somebody blew up the Cacove Cadam in Southern Ukraine.

The rushing wall of water wiped out entire villages, destroyed a critical hydropower plant, and as of tonight puts the largest nuclear reactor in Europe in danger of melting down. So, if this was intentional, it was not a military tactic, it was an act of terrorism. The question is, who did it? Well, let's see. The Cacovka Dam was effectively Russian. It was built by the Russian government. It currently sits in Russia. Sorry. The Dam's reservoir supplies water to Crimea,

which has been for the last 240 years, home of the Russian black sea fleet. Blowing up the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia more. And for precisely that reason, the Ukrainian government has considered destroying it. In December, the Washington Post quoted a Ukrainian general saying his men had fired American-made rockets at the dam's floodgate as a test strike. So really, once the facts start coming in, it becomes much less of a mystery what might

have happened to the damn. Any fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians probably blew it up. Okay, so that was quick. Okay, so that's literally the way he opened. Yeah. Hey, what's up? Damn exploded. It wasn't the Russians. It totally wasn't Putin.

Even though we know that would be exactly right up his wheelhouse, it makes strategic sense for that military. Off to the races, just right. Right. Hello, my name is Tucker. Tucker's a great. Let's go from there. So let's start here with that Washington Post article

that he's talking about. That is a real article, but Tucker's wildly mischaracterizing what it says. The article itself is a discussion of Ukrainian counter offensives against Russian occupied areas, largely focusing on the successful push to liberate Isyum. After that operation concluded in the northeast of the country, Ukrainian generals were interested in attempting similar tactics in the south to drive Russia out of Kurshsad. Essentially, the story is about a fake-out tactic that allowed Ukrainian forces to make it

appear that they were heading for Isyom when they were actually approaching from the north, which led to a mass retreat by Russian troops and a victory for Ukraine. The hope was to be able to create another situation near Kursan, where Russian troops would be isolated and forced to surrender or retreat. The area around the city of Kursan is mainland Ukraine, bordered to the east by the Dnapur River. On the other side of that river is more of the Kursan Oblast and ways further south you end up in the Crimea

and peninsula. Okay. From the opposite side of the river from Kursan to the land bridge to Crimea, it's still over a hundred kilometers. But this land is also at this point under Russian occupation. Right, right. For the last years.

So like, if I, here's what I understand about the dam. It's hard to just fully, like verbally explain geography, but that was about as good as I can do. Right, so from what I understand of the dam scenario, all right, it's been under Russian occupation for quite some time. The last year. Right, yeah.

That's quite some time. I guess. In my world. All right. In the grand scale. Sure, that's fair. You know. I mean, wartime a year is a long time.

Sure. And then the seismic people were like, oh, there is an explosion and it probably came from inside. The Russians are inside and it's technically really smart for them to blow up the dam, even though that's a war crime. So it kind of makes sense for them to have done it, and they did do it. There are a number of thoughts around it,

and I would say that it's probably at this point, based on the information I am aware of. Pretty difficult to say with certainty. Yeah. Anything about who did what, but there are indications and factors. And so if that's a conclusion you're coming to, I think it's fine for you to reach that conclusion.

But I think it would be reckless of you to say definitively that one side did it or not. Fair. What I will say is that I have just figured out blues clues. How does that sound? Great. Okay.

So the goal of this operation that Ukraine was engaged in, that this Washington Post was talking about, was to cut off the city of Kursan from the area to the western side of the river. That's where Kursan the city is. You're trying to isolate that from Russian occupied areas so that the Russians couldn't restock supplies to the forces there. From that article, quote, the 25,000 Russian troops in that portion of Kursan separated

by the broad river from their supplies had been placed in a highly exposed position. If enough military pressure was applied, Moscow would have no choice but to retreat. Kovalchak said. Russia had to arm and feed its forces via three crossings. The Antonovsky Bridge, the Antonovsky Railway Bridge, and the Novakakovka Dam, part of a hydroelectric facility with a road running on top of it. The two bridges were targeted with US supplied M142 high mobility rocket systems or high Mars launchers which have a range of 50 miles and were quickly rendered impassable.

There were moments when we turned off their supply lines completely and they still managed to build crossings. Kovalevich said, they managed to replenish ammunition. It was very difficult. Kovalevich considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with high marsal launchers on one of the floodgates at the Novakovskadam, making three holes in the metal to see if the neighbor water would be raised high enough to stymie Russian crossings, but not flood nearby villages. The test was a success, Kovalcek said, but the step remained a last resort he held off.

Right. So that is the thing in that article that Tucker is referring to. Right. Gotcha. One variable that's important to recognize here is that the Ukrainian forces were able to force a retreat from the city of Kursan, but that wasn't all that happened. From that same Washington Post article, quote, the pressure from Ukrainian troops forced a retreat, but they didn't manage to run down or destroy the fleeing Russians. Mines, in some case laid a meter apart and three rows deep or tucked in thin strips of road prevented the Ukrainians from giving chase. There are a lot of possibilities for what happened with that damn and it's not a foregone conclusion

the way Tucker is saying it is. It's possible that Ukrainian forces blew it up but it doesn't really serve a meaningful strategic purpose for them right now. When flooding the dam was considered an option late last year, it was in the context of a larger objective which was ultimately achieved, so using this article to justify present-day actions doesn't really make sense. It's also possible that Russia blew it up for any number of reasons, or it's not impossible that it collapsed due to completely unintentional causes. It could have been one of the mines that was left behind, or a freak accident. There are a lot of possibilities, but when you're Tucker and you're presenting the situation through an extremely rush of promoting lens, then it makes sense to say that any fair person would conclude that Ukrainians blew it up.

Well, I mean, if your evidence is inherently unfair, then an unfair person wouldn't even look at it, whereas a fair person wouldn't even look at it. Whereas a fair person would be like, well, I guess that's all the evidence, so you must be right. Well, the only primary source he's even like pointing to is this Washington Post article, and that doesn't work. Yeah, yep, yep, yep.

Okay, one thing I think you can notice right away that sets Tucker apart from Alex is how intentional his words are. Alex talks shit off the top of his head and intuitively understands how to spin these yarns, which is often a sloppy process and can lead to complete incoherence. But Tucker doesn't turn on the camera and just go live. He does some preparation and the fingerprints of that preparation are really transparent when you pay attention.

Look at the way he's presenting these details. He begins by establishing the fact that the dam was intentionally destroyed by someone and that that act could not be a legitimate military target, but was an act of terrorism. That's like he just he yeah, that's the framing of the entire. On earned. Yeah. Well, he starts by saying if this was intentional and then immediately without you even noticing is like of course it's intentional. Yeah, yeah, it's a framing device.

It's good. Yeah, it works. He then goes on to say that the dam was quote effectively Russian because it was built by the Russian government and sits in Russian territory. That sounds pretty persuasive except the Tucker fails to mention that the dam was built in the 1950s when Ukraine was part of the USSR, and that the territory that the dam is in can only be called Russian territory because the Russian army is occupying it. It's been an illegally occupied area since the invasion began in 2022. Tucker is trying to play that game that other Russia apologists do, where they argue that

areas like Crimea or the Donbass are actually really Russia, evoking the idea that the invasion is just Russia taking back what's actually already theirs. That's not accurate about those areas, and it's even less true of Kursan. But if you're listening to the way that Tucker speaks, his words contain conclusions that he hasn't earned. Yeah. If you're not paying attention, you'll just like,

okay, yeah, that makes sense. And if you put it in a different context, you go, well, that's an absurd line of thinking. Like, okay, so this guy sold you a house. And then he just broken and took the house back and then threw you out. And you're like, well, I mean, he built the house. So I guess it is. What are you going to do? So then Tucker adds that the dam and the reservoir provides water for Crimea, an area that Tucker is comfortable saying is rightfully part of Russia because that's where their black sea fleet is stationed.

That sounds good. Tucker isn't giving the full picture here. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, and at that point they needed the water that came from the neighbor river and the Kakova reservoir. It wasn't as much of an issue for drinking water, but the North Cremian Canal, which is fed from that reservoir, is responsible for a vast majority of the irrigation systems in the area. After the annexation, Ukraine began requiring payments from Russia for the delivery of water, which Russia did not go along with. Due to their refusal to pay,

Ukraine created another dam that would block the flow of water to the North Cremian channel. In the present invasion, Russian troops seized the area and they blew up that dam, reopening the canal for the delivery of water, which in turn lowered the level of the reservoir considerably, and caused some concerns about issues that Tucker is even bringing up now, like the danger to the nuclear power plant. Right, right, right.

So that was there, then when they did that to open up the water to the nuclear power plant. Right, right, right. So like that was there then when they did that to open up the water to the channel. And I don't know. So you're saying that Russia has already blown up a dam? Well, it is, it is, but it is a little different too. You know, there are different reasons you would do these things. Sure, sure, I understand.

Just because they're both dams doesn't mean they're the exact same situation. Sure, no, I'm not saying that they're the same situation. Sure, sure. Just because they're both dams doesn't mean they're the exact same situation. Sure, no, no, I'm not saying that they're the same situation. I'm just saying that if you have a group of people who have already blown up a dam, we'll get strategic value out of it, have evidence of being there,

and we're in control of the dam at the time. Hey, there's a lot of evidence mounting. I'm not saying that there aren't interesting factors, but it's not it's not a smoking gun. It's not a smoking gun. No, am I saying it is. So here when Tucker says that this provides water for Crimea, it's kind of true, but it's actually a much denser picture than he wants the audience to see, because when you consider nuance and detail, it's harder to just accept the Russian apologist framing that he's taking. So then Tucker says, quote, blowing up the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia

more, and for precisely that reason the Ukrainian government has considered destroying it. He then transitions into the Washington Post article that we discussed as the justification for the basis of that claim. But that article doesn't support Tucker's position. That article is not about Ukraine considering destroying the dam because it would hurt Russia more than them. It has an element in it of Ukraine considering destroying part of the dam and Tucker is writing his own story about why

and using that for his own purposes. It's pretty similar behavior that you see with Alex. You know, basically what you're doing is abusing a primary source. Alex usually uses rewritten headlines. Yeah. But in this case, Tucker is just cherry picking one detail and then writing a context around it that doesn't exist in the original.

No, it's very clear literally from clip one that this is a slicker version of Alex's show. Yeah, but it also gets less slick as it goes along. Well, that I also believe. Yeah. But, but I mean, just from the writing, the fact that he's using the local TV news voice, you know, like inside and then outside, they go to the thing.

Yeah, like he does the whole produced vibe of it, but it is still grabbing and choosing things and then Mr. Prypton is representing that. And there's rhetorical tricks that he uses that Alex doesn't use like and vice versa. Alex uses screaming and fake crying stuff like that, which Tucker is probably maybe too proud to do at this point. Yeah, a couple months away from doing it.

This point, whereas Tucker uses these tricks that Alex doesn't use, which is like any fair person would say blank, you know, like is it so impossible that blank? That kind of leading his rhetorical tricks. Alex would not be able to really pull that off because it requires subtlety and smoothness whereas Alex is a blunt instrument. Well, I mean, what I find fascinating about that is that I think the easiest place to assume that you would come to that from, if you were Tucker,

is being like, oh, well, he's trying to appeal to more a median class, or like more moderate people. When I feel like what he's doing there is just giving extreme people a way to call themselves fair people. Do you know what I mean? Like he is giving you the excuse to say, no, no, no, no, no, you are not supporting Russia because you're a far right lunatic like everybody else who's just going along with what Weirdo say.

You're a fair-minded person. And you'd have to be based on the blah blah blah blah blah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. There's a there's a there's a number of applications for why this rhetoric would be employed. Yeah. In the way that it is. Yeah. So Tucker has these fraudulently presented points, which he then uses to insinuate that when you consider the facts, it's a lot easier to see that Ukraine probably blew up the damn. The truth is when you consider the actual facts, it's not easier to reach that conclusion. But if you only consider the bullshit way, Tucker is showing you the selected details, it's super easy to reach that conclusion. And that's because Tucker isn't interested

in exploring the news. This is about leading the viewer to that conclusion, and like you're saying, justify it in some way that is emotionally acceptable. This isn't analysis or commentary, it's really just propaganda. It's pretty interesting to just dive in and be like, this is this guy. Yeah.

That is different. I mean, now that I'm the same, but different. Yeah, no, now that I'm listening to it, it is, it is like the idea of watching Alex and Tucker because they do, you know, they do watch it. They don't just watch Info Wars. Alex talks about Tucker all the time. Everybody knows what Tucker and Alex are saying in that ecosystem They text all the time apparently totally there's got to be a point

There's got to be like a a a feeling of Alex gives you the like no, I'm the revolution I'm part of the American rebel. I'm throwing tea off shit Whereas Tucker gives you that feeling of like I'm not crazy. This is of course what is right to do I'm a fair-minded person. Yeah. Like, that's a fascinating thing. Sure, sure. And I would be lying if I didn't say

that a part of what drew me towards giving this a test, seeing if this is something that's worthwhile is that, you hear a lot of people saying, like, now that he's off Fox. He's gone full info wars Sure sure sure and such and like okay, well, I'm maybe one of the people is the most familiarity with info wars in the world Let's see is that is the case. Yeah, nobody is more prepared to give you a ruling on that question And I and so far I think based on one episode I don't know but like based on that yes, I don't know. But like based on that, yes and no.

There are a lot of similarities. And then there's a lot of stuff that's like, but I think a lot of things that are those primary differences often come down to some aesthetic and tactical kind of ideas. Yeah, it feels like it depends on what fucking hat you're wearing. Yeah. And neither of these guys wear hats.

They don't wear good hats. Not on air. Alex, when he's off air, always wears a 10 gallon hat. Oh, that's too big. Always wears a cowboy hat. Eight gallons plenty. The Texan. Eight gallons are plenty for everybody.

You don't need 10 gallons. Where there's a water crisis. Yeah. Talker wears a two gallon hat. Oh, that's two pint hat. So, not only did Ukraine blow up the dam, they also blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. Any fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians probably blew it up, just as you would assume they blew up Nord Stream, the Russian natural gas pipeline last fall.

In fact, the Ukrainians did do that, as we now know. It's not like Vladimir Putin is anxious to wage war on himself. Oh, but that's where you're wrong, Mr. and Mrs. Cable News consumer. Vladimir Putin is exactly that sort of man, the sort of man who'd shoot himself to death in order to annoy you. We know this from the American media, which wasted no time this morning in accusing the Russians of sabotaging their own infrastructure. So Tucker can't prove that Ukraine attacked the Nord Stream pipeline.

That being said, there's a distinct possibility that it is the case that either a group sympathetic to Ukraine or Ukrainian special tactics team did do it. It's possible. Sure. Tucker is claiming that it's definitively the case, which you can't back up. Last month, a bunch of classified documents were leaked

on Discord including one that indicated that the CIA was aware that Ukraine had plans to blow up the pipeline approximately three months before that attack took place. Okay. It's entirely possible that this plan was what came to fruition but it's also possible that it's not. Yeah. The person who leaked that information

was a 21 year old man named Jack Tashara who has now been arrested for the leak. While you shouldn't necessarily throw out a message because it comes from a shitty messenger, it's probably important to be aware that Jack was described by a friend as a proud racist who was preoccupied with the idea of a coming race war. He was a bigot who talked about how the government was a Zionist occupied government and he liked to hang out with like-minded young people so he started a discord server called Thug Shaker Central. Jack worked in computer science for the government and through that he had

access to this classified material which he then posted on his racist discord server. Also in that server he would laugh while watching ISIS execution videos and express his support about the Christ Church massacre. I'm bringing this up because Jack DeShare is clearly a piece of shit, but that does not necessarily mean that the document that he's leaked is fake. What it does mean is that I'm not willing to trust this racist right-wing extremist judgment when it comes to leaking documents that capture the full picture of the available intelligence. Someone like this is clearly intensely ideologically motivated, and that makes it very difficult to

take on blind faith that there isn't another document that casts doubt on Ukrainian responsibility for the pipeline attack that he ignored or didn't release. That is a real difficulty when you have someone like this as the person who's providing the secret material. Yeah, yeah. The material itself could be totally real. No, their point of view is what limits the value of the... As a leaker. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, well, you can't...

Okay, you are a person who is known for, maybe above all else, choosing and picking what things you want to believe are true and share with other people at the exclusion of things that maybe completely destructive towards that. So yeah, I don't think I would take you first. Yeah. So I have some, I have some tentative issues with this that, you know, Hey, that document. I believe it's real. So it entirely could be indicative of the plan that was carried out, but I suspend a little bit of judgment in terms of making a definitive conclusion. I mean, and also I have a big, the biggest problem I have with all of these like, oh, this

place has plans to do this thing. I bet 50 bucks that some American people have plans to blow up shit. Yeah. I bet every country everywhere has plans to blow up something that if you were like, hey, you shouldn't have plans to blow it up and they'd be like, no, we were just making plans in case. That's true. Yeah. That's true. Some of the context is important. Yeah, absolutely. So Tucker mocks there that, you know, the idea that Putin would hurt himself just to annoy you.

I would ever. What's like Alex, Tucker used to be a huge opponent of Putin. Oh, yeah. Yeah. As with Alex, it would not be a surprise to find him being an adherent to the belief that Putin carried out the apartment bombings back at that point in time before Tucker became excessively pro Putin. Right.

It's really interesting to see Tucker denigrating the cable news watcher here too. And that clip, he's on his first day of his denigrating the cable news watcher here too in that clip. He's on his first day of his career not being a cable news hack and all of a sudden he's so above the riff raff. It feels like an adolescent who's found a new friend group and is pretending he was never a dork. I get the motivation here but it's kinda sad. Like Tucker didn't decide to strike out on his own when he had another choice.

He's doing this show because he got fired from a cable news hack position where he made millions for years. It's not like, oh, the cable news media wants you, the cable news, if you were to believe that Putin wants to annoy you. Girl up. Listen, person who's watched me on cable news for 20 plus years. Watching cable news is stupid. Yeah, all right, buddy. So anyway, also, what have you been doing for the past 20 years, Tucker? Just a real quick question.

Follow up with me whenever you have time. Backpacking through the news. Table news viewer is stupid. I'm a person who's watching you on cable news for 20 years. So what have you been doing for 20 years? I was on a sabbatical research in Botan. Ah, that's a really good idea. Are they coming back?

No. So Tucker saying that Russia had no reason to attack themselves. Oh my God. But he's also really comfortable saying that other things are false flags. It just feels disingenuous to have false flag within your vocabulary and then be like, What kind of fool would false flag within your vocabulary and then be like what kind of

fool would false flag themselves exactly what an idiot what kind of moron would engage in false flaggery and and obviously there's false flags that happen all the time. I mean, yeah, and I think that that dynamic that you're playing with there is exactly why it's important to realize that like false flag accusations aren't sincere. No. It's a tactical rhetorical thing. Yeah. The people like Alex and Tucker use to sidestep and excuse and make excuses for the people that they want to support when they do a tropious thing. Yeah.

A false flag accusation might as well be a smoke bomb. Yeah. It might as well be a boom. Okay. Now we can't see what it is we're exactly talking about. I don't feel like I can afford to accept that that's real without limiting my support for the people who are bad that I want us to totally.

If I agree with you, I have to change. That is what you should say. Or at very least, if I agree with you, I don't have an argument not to take. Right, right. If I agree with you, then I can only either say, I am 100% totally fine with murdering innocent people, or I'm gonna have to do a lot different with my life.

Yeah, that's not good. So Tucker talks a little bit of shit here. And then I just, I found this to be fascinating the way that he talks. Bill Crystal, the man who once told us that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, immediately denounced Putin as he more from even more savagely compared him to Donald Trump.

The rest of the pun to the class made similar clearly coordinated noises. Putin did it! Putin did it! And the reasoning was simple. Putin is evil. And evil people do evil things purely for the dark joy of being evil. In this specific case, Putin attacked himself, which is the most evil thing you can do,

and therefore perfectly in character for a man that evil. That was their explanation. It feels like he's talking to children. Wait, attacking oneself is the... Most evil thing you can do. What? I don't know. Okay. I guess. Alright, that's...

Is that what you were writing down in the notes? No, no, no. I was just writing down that the idea of a bunch of people agreeing that something happened because that's probably how it happened is coordination. You know, like not consensus or not like with the information available, this is the conclusion that we have drawn. It's coordinated. It concludes, oh, we've all talked

and this is the story we're going with. Sure, man. Yeah. Yeah. The carrier pigeons go out and tell you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Yep. So I don't know if Bill Crystal actually ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9-11, but I'll stipulate that it is true because I don't really care. And I don't have time to read through 100 Bill Crystal transcripts should find his comments. Do you know what he said about Binlon? Hmm. I can't come up with a Billy Crystal joke. He's only mostly dead. Okay.

Even if that is a real statement that Bill Crystal made, I would argue that Tucker Carlson's career at Crossfire did way more damage and was way more inaccurate just around the issues related to Saddam Hussein. The war in Iraq didn't happen because someone like Crystal said that Saddam did 9-11. It was sold to the public largely on the rationale that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Because he had WMDs and Harvard terrorists, we could not just wait and see how things went we needed to take action. Tucker sold the war on CNN.

Tucker argued day in, day out that he didn't support war, but that Saddamah weapons of mass destruction and we needed to begrudgingly invade. He can try to play this rogueish character that's so different from the republican establishment, but his career was built on being complicit in their greatest blunders. Also, on a number of occasions, Tucker came right up to the line of saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9-11. For instance, on the September 25, 2002 episode of Crossfire, he said this, quote, "...more hints today that there is some kind of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

At a NATO conference in Poland, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that Washington has evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda. He says he presented the evidence to other NATO defense ministers. So far, however, most Democrats are dismissive of the evidence, presumably because Democrat campaign hacks believe they have better access to classified intelligence information than the Secretary of Defense.

Yeah. I really love how we don't have a remember anything. Like we just don't have a remember anything. Like we just don't do it. Like as a society. It's true. We're just like, yeah, if we talk about that and hold people responsible for it, we're gonna have to change.

I feel like this is the situation that we keep coming up against is like, if I acknowledge that the reality is what it is, I'm going to have to do something different. And so I just refuse to acknowledge it. But I think a lot of people are willing to recognize those things and want that change. Totally. And just don't find ourselves in a position where we're disempowered from being able to make that change.

What are we supposed to do? He shouldn't be there! Yeah. What am I supposed to say? Uh. It's hard. So more startlingly, I think. This is fucking baby talk. What he's doing?

This is nonsense. That legitimately sounds like he's talking to middle schoolers. But what he's saying does somewhat line up with Alex's explanation of the globalists. They're evil, they do false flags because they're evil, and they just delight in being evil. So it's interesting to see Tucker mock this mentality in what he views as the cable news class who aren't actually saying this and yet he aligns himself with Alex who is saying that.

Right. Weird. Right. And just because it's fun. Here's a clip of Tucker on C-SPAN from 1999. This was back when he worked for Bill Crystal at the Weekly Standard. Tucker, you work for Bill Crystal, correct? I do, happily. Yeah. bill crystal at the weekly standard tucker you work for bill crystal correct i do happily

yeah that that guy he's not republican he's the disgrace papi canning is a ripped of yesterday all the talk shows and i'm a papi canabacare and i think republican party is going to rule the day we don't need republicans like you and bill crystal when you republicans and conservatives like papi canon and i think republicans are going to rule the day of the other mess with Pap, because when he goes, I go and a lot of other people go. Damn, that collar sounds like present day Tucker, time traveled back to scold himself.

That is so wild. That is so wild. Yeah. I don't like time. I don't like its existence. I don't like the fact that I've had to experience it. I know that four-dimensional space is fucking set in stone. There's no changing the future or the past. It all happens simultaneously. And this disgusts me, sir. Yeah, whatever happened happened. Oh my god. Or something. Except for talker is able to time travel and go back to school to his bowtie

wearing ass on C-spam. I, that's all. I listened to that as like oh my god. That is such a interesting parallel I mean the present yeah, that's fucked up. Yeah, that really fucks with my head right I mean you just take the the establishment GOP and Replace be cannon with Trump. Yeah, and it's so much I mean it, it's disgusting. It's just, it's just, I'm supposed to know, like, here's the problem. All right, the problem is that fiction lies to us. It's not real. Because in fiction, people grow.

That's the whole idea. That's the whole idea of the hero's journey. You meet conflict, you overcome it, you are changed, and then things go on. But not the not in real life. It's not real. It's not real. It's not real. That's the whole idea of the hero's journey. You meet conflict, you overcome it, you are changed, and then things go on. But not in real life. There's no hero's journey.

There's just somebody meet something, and then random shit happens, and then people allow the rigthioing it again. Well, think about it as a villains journey, though. Like, you know, no consequences. Well, Tucker's laughing at this caller scolding him on C-Span and then over time through progressive, you know, just deterioration of his, is possible.

Any integrity that may or may not have been there at the, in 1999, he ends up becoming that caller. Yeah, basically. Yeah, that is so weird. It is. That is so weird. It is. So no one, no one is saying that the damn Situation could be Ukraine and that's not true. No, a lot of people are saying we don't know. Yeah You're saying that yeah, sure and a lot of the news sources that I was reading were like yeah

Ukraine blames Russia Russia blames Ukraine. We're it's a war, yeah, that's how it goes. Kind of unclear at this point, there's reasons to believe either side could have. It's a war. But anyway, no one is saying that it's a crime. No one who's paid to cover these things seem to entertain even the possibility. Are you paying to Ukrainians who did it? No chance of that. Ukraine, as you may have heard, is led by a man called Zelensky. We can say for a dead certain fact

that he was not involved, he couldn't have been. Zelensky is too decent for terrorism. Now you see him on television, it's true you might form a different impression, sweaty and rat-like, a comedian turned oligarch, a persecutor of Christians, a friend of BlackRock. But don't believe your own eyes. Damn. A friend to black rock. So like I said, every news article that I've seen about the damn

situation is said that Ukraine points the finger at Russia and that Russia blames Ukraine, and that no one knows for sure. Further, all of the mainstream media outlets have covered the leaked document that came from the racist discord server that showed Ukrainian planning involving attacking the pipeline. And Tucker's only primary source that he's brought up at all, uh, that had to do. I only primary source at all, but it also was to do with that Ukrainian military figure considering flooding the dam at the end of 2022 came from the Washington post. Yeah.

So like, what, what are you talking about? All you people paid to cover this dumb thing that are so stupid. Anyways, the Washington Post, I rely on their coverage. All right. Yeah. The mainstream media isn't all marching in lockstep saying the Putin did this, but people like Tucker and Alex like to create that image for their audience, because, you know, it's a cheap trick that they can use to make themselves seem like a

conoclastic voices. like the only ones brave enough to think for themselves while everyone else is a sheep on autopilot. Again, you've been working for cable news for 20 plus years. Yeah, bow tie. Jesus. Tucker is using some interesting language to describe Zelensky there, and it's not language

that was missed by flagrant anti-Semites. Oh, yeah. Like Andrew Anglin, the guy who runs the daily stormer. Somebody who looks rat-faced. Yeah. Yeah, like Andrew Anglin, the guy who runs the daily stormer somebody who looks rat faced yeah, and Persecutes Christians so Andrew Anglin wrote a review of Tucker's first episode and he said quote I did like that he called him a rat-like persecutor of Christians. That's good Tucker was playing to his Nazi audience and they heard him loud and clear. Yeah, that's not what that one wasn't hard to miss.

That one wasn't hard to miss. That's the most anti-semitic thing I've heard recently. Yeah. Yeah. Pretty pretty pretty over. Yeah. Yeah. And so he's allowed to do that.

Yeah, apparently on Twitter it flies. Okay. And I mean, it doesn't stop there either, really. Actually, Mr. Zelensky is a very good man. The best, really. As George W. Bush once noted, he is our generation's Winston Churchill. Of all the people in the world,

our shifty, dead-eyed Ukrainian friend, and the lawsuit is uniquely incapable of blowing up a damn. I'm sorry? He's literally a living saint, a man in whom there is no sin. It's pretty grand, the stuff. It's pretty grim stuff. It's really hard to listen to Tucker's smug baby talk media criticism and not feel condescended to.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could really listen to or watch this shit unless they were already in pretty deep in believing him. Like if you're actively listening to what he's saying, this would be annoying and insulting to the point where I would just turn it off. Yeah, dude, people not get that he's being very mean to them. He's a dick. He's an asshole.

Like, this is not the way you talk to a human being that you're an equal to. No. No, no, no. It is very, very patronizing. That's weird. And people choose to be patronized to in an almost comforting way.

Fascinating. I could see it being somewhat comforting if that's what you're looking for. Fascinating. So more fun attacks on Salanski there. Sure. Interestingly, in Andrew Anglin's review, he also says this, quote, he used my shifty and dead eyed line. Not only is Anglin happy about Tucker calling Ukraine's Jewish president shifty and dead eyed, he's taking credit for being where Tucker got it from. Yeah. So along with that Washington Post article, it looks like we found a second primary source

Tucker is working from the Nazi head of the daily stormer. Yeah. So that's fun. People should be real not happy with Tucker. Real happy. You know, everyone except for the Nazi folk. It seems like way. Yeah.

Yeah. It should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled.

They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled.

They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. They should be thrilled. makes a joke about, you know, it's the best money we've ever spent or something like that about the investment in defending Ukraine. Right.

And it's a little tacky perhaps. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But talk to Lindsey Graham. Yeah. But Tucker has some interesting perspective. See, there's nothing dark here. It's just two middle-aged guys celebrating the killing of a population. They don't seem like the kind of people who'd enjoy flooding villages or starting a famine.

In any case, who cares if they are? It's really not your business. Your job is to support Ukraine. Watch Nikki Haley, a Republican candidate for president, explain this principle on CNN. A win for Ukraine is a win for all of us. And for them to sit there and say that this is a territorial dispute. That's just not the case. To say that we should stay neutral. It is in the best interest of America. It's in the best interest of our national security for Ukraine to win.

We have to see this through. We have to finish it. Say, it's very easy to understand. It is vitally important for you to support Ukraine because it's necessary for Ukraine to be supported by you Your support is mandatory until it's finished whatever it is and whatever that means So shut up and support Ukraine or else you're in trouble. Niki Haley didn't say that. I Didn't hear her say that. No. I would if I had heard her said that I would have let you know Yeah, do you saying that it's in the US is a national interest for Ukraine to come out victorious?

Tucker isn't responding to what she said. He's responding to what it feels like she said. If you only watch trash shows like Tucker's, that's intentional. So Zelensky and Lindsey Graham being happy about Russian soldiers dying as fucked up in some ways, but it's not really impossible to understand. Does Tucker think that Putin is solemnly lighting a candle and saying a devout prayer for every Ukrainian soldier his troops kill? Like, you'd hope that everyone would constantly stay aware of people's humanity, but it's a war. It's a war where Zelensky's country was invaded.

You can understand someone in that position, not being the most precious about lives. None of what they said makes it any more or less likely that they blew up the damn, but this is a fun game for Tucker because it's a shortcut for him to present Zelensky as a bad person so then he can say, doesn't it seem like he's the sort of person who would blow up that damn? Even if you buy the premise that he's a bad person, it doesn't follow that this indicates that he's willing to blow up a damn to, you know, blame somebody else. I mean, I think the simplest thing about this that is being distracted away from by Tucker is the idea that there are militaries and countries involved. You know, like by turning this into a

popularity contest between do you like Putin or do you like Zelensky or this sweaty totally yeah Yeah, yeah, do you do you pass who do you pass a note to in eighth grade? You know like it's that fucking shit as opposed to being like it is sort of retreating to almost like a gossipy laugh Totally 100% it's removing the reality of fucking Not just that not just that but I will I want to I wanna say this to Tucker, right away. Oh boy. The only thing that they do not let Zelensky do

is have any say in any of the warship. He's there to get money. That's what he's for. And he's great at it. He's a comedian and an actor. He does not know anything about military tactics. So of course they don't. Let me take a step back and say in addition to that,

he's also very effective at raising the morale of the country. He is a great leader in that respect. If you wanted a president for this with what kind of training, it wouldn't be like a great military leader or a great administrator.'d be somebody who can fucking rally people can they nailed it yeah yeah so uh... the the game that tucker is playing there with the uh... he's a bad person so maybe he would blow up a damn alex engages in that kind of thing a lot there's a whole genre of conspiracy theory where the person making the claim has no evidence of anything

But to make the narrative stick you just hang it on insinuations that aren't the bad guys capable of doing this bad thing And so like that's one of the things I've tried to like Focus on as I was going through this is like the similarities and differences between Alex and this totally and there are that is a A big thing in Alex's world, like, you know, class robes are bad guys. So of course he would want you to be imprisoned in your apartment and eat bugs. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. I don't know. Yeah. The, the reductiveness is so fucking weird. But that's the, that's the baby talk shit. No, I know. That's what it, it is like, oh, so the, to me, what I'm hearing is the focus is like, let's take extremely complicated events, boil them down to a popularity contest, and then you choose which one you like more,

guess who I'm going to tell you to choose, but, and that's it. Um, maybe a, maybe a little bit of that. And then, uh, but the popularity contest is also like presented as, uh, also, uh, it's not just these popular, contest is also presented as also, it's not just these popular, this is also right. Sure, sure, sure, sure, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I don't know, I think I need to see a bit more of this before I can really have a feel

for Tucker, but there's, the reductive is a good way to put it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, reductive for sure. So we got another pot kettle situation with Tucker's comments about Nikki Haley too. Back when he was a bow tie wearing little boy, Tucker spent a fair amount of his time scolding people who didn't support the war in Iraq

and had a position that it was mandatory. For instance, here's Tucker from a January 21st, 2003 episode of Crossfire, quote, Francis foreign minister has been swaggering around the UN lately, boasting that his country from a January 21st 2003 episode of Crossfire." Quote, France's foreign minister has been swaggering around the UN lately, boasting that his country will never support American war plans regardless of the evidence against Saddam Hussein. Asked about our so-called allies' reluctance to stand up to evil dictators, a clearly frustrated President Bush told reporters, surely our friends have learned lessons from the past.

On the other hand, maybe they haven't. As one by one, its former colonies have descended into chaos and misery, France has looked away when a war broke out in the middle of Europe during the 1990s France yawned. When the United States, which twice saved France from a German-speaking future, attempts to disarm one of the world's most dangerous lunatics, France Howells. Fair enough, let's invade Iraq just to annoy France. What a child. How does everybody, how has he gotten away with the stick for so long? He's a little whiny baby. There's something to that. Wow. On that same episode, Tucker was talking

to an anti-war activist and made the point that there was a whole lot of wars going on in the world, but they were focused on the war in Iraq saying, quote, I must say, the anti war movement seems like an anti-America movement to me. We've been there before. Yeah. Tucker's political position was that the war in Iraq was in the US's best interest. So he went about deriding people who didn't agree with him. Right.

What Nikki Haley said wasn't even as explicit or extreme as the line that Tucker took in the past, but he appears to be responding essentially to what he would say. Yeah. As opposed to what Haley did say. Yeah, I'm interested to see Tucker essentially call everybody stupid for doing the thing that he did for 25 years. It seems like a lot of this. Yeah. So hypocrisy doesn't matter.

And I'm not trying to score. No, of course. Of course not. But there's a dynamic that I think is pretty worth noting there. Tucker's response to Haley's comments don't really make sense based on her actual comments. She didn't say that it was mandatory to support Ukraine and didn't say you needed to support them because they needed your support. Tucker's commentary is far more suited to be the response to something that he would

say. He is and has been the sort of commentator who would say the thing that he's attributing to Haley and so he's responding in kind. There's kind of a weird dynamic there that's very similar to Alex's like, you know, the globalist plans are what I would do. Right, right, right. Exactly. That kind of projection of your own sheetiness onto the mind of the person you're commenting on. If I was trying of your own yeah, sheetiness onto the mind with the person you're commenting on. If I was trying to sell this war, I would sell it like this,

the way that I did. Yeah. And look, I don't know everything that Nikki Haley has ever said, but you know, if she's saying that it's mandatory to support the war, then the clip that he plays should be demonstrative of that.

You would say that's the claim that he's making and then he's playing this clip. Yeah. It was not. It's almost as though he did that on purpose to prime you for, you know, you know, so you would hear that as her saying that. Exactly. Yeah. So she, you know, the Mickey Haley's comment was not, you must support Ukraine because Ukraine needs your support. Right. Right. Right. But

that's the way that we're moving forward. And now Tucker tries. We're moving forward as though she did say that despite the fact that she had and he hasn't proved it. Yes. And now Tucker wants to sound really smart. And unfortunately, he has run up against someone who knows what he's talking about. Back when they still taught logic, statements like this were known as totology. Oh, I wouldn't do that, buddy. It's true because it is. The more you repeat it, the churer it becomes. It's a self-reinforcing reality.

There was a time when totologies were considered illegitimate arguments, not to mention hilariously stupid. Only dumb people talk like that. Now, everybody in power talks like that. Diversity is our strength. Transwomen are women. Zelensky is Churchill. It's all self-evidently true.

Doesn't need an explanation and don't ask questions. Tucker does not understand what he's talking about. But this strikes me as a piece of evidence that someone working on his staff probably likes to watch online debate streamers. Tatology is one of the terms that you might hear thrown around by these debate folks along with some names of fallacies, but they don't usually use them correctly. No, that's usually why they are saying them.

Yeah, because they didn't take any classes on ice. Right, right, because they know that if the yellows wear the reds the conversation. Red Wikipedia article about stuff. I know what a totology is. So in the area of logic, a totology is a statement that must be true because it has to be. For instance, A equals A is a totology because the thing must be the same as itself.

Another really elementary one is either A equals B or A does not equal B because the disjunction or is satisfied if one of the elements is true, and a equals b and a does not equal b contain all possible states of b. Either they are the same or they are not. A totology is essentially a structure of a statement that has no possible way of being false. When you're talking about logic, totologies aren't bad arguments, they're just a term that describes formulations of sentences that can never be false. And when we're talking about how something can never be false,

it's important to understand that this is using the word false in the logic sense. Sentences have truth values in as much as they can be true or false based on their structure. For instance, if you have the sentence A and B, the truth value of the sentence is determined by the truth value of AND. For the conjunction AND to be true, both A and B must be true. So if A and B are true, the sentence A and B is true, and if A is true and B is false,

then the sentence A and B is false. When you get into different types of grammar within the sentences, different rules apply for truth values. For instance, if you have the disjunction, like A or B, that sentence will be true if A is true, if B is true, or if both are true. The only way it can be false is if both are false. If you're dealing with an if-then statement like if-a then-b, that will be true in every case except for the instance where a is true and b is false, because of the relationship of how if-then and or work. All of these sentence constructions are not tautologies because there are instances where they can be false. What Tucker is talking about is not the logic meaning of totology. He's talking about the rhetoric version. This is a term that's

thrown around to drive someone using somewhat self-proving or redundant arguments that people make like what Tucker is pretending Nikki Ailey said. She didn't say that you need to support Ukraine because they need your support, but Tucker claimed that's what she said most likely because he wanted to do this little fake smart guy stick about tautologies, because that sentence would be more or less a rhetorical redundancy. The problem here runs a little bit deeper though. The statements that he mocks at the end of the clip are not tautologies in the logic sense

nor in the rhetoric sense. They are just sentiments that he doesn't like. Diversity is our strength is a bit slogany, but it's not a totology. It's not even really something you could translate into the logical form because it's just a statement. It wouldn't be an if, a, then, b kind of thing. It would just be represented by a.

There's no competitive. It would just be, there's no grammar within it. Yeah, no, it's just, it's's just a and that can be true or false Yeah, that's it's not a totology It also isn't a totology in the rhetorical sense because it's not redundant Our strength is our strength would be a rhetorical totology right trans women our women is not a totology Again, it's just a statement that he doesn't like. It's slightly verbally redundant, and the word woman appears twice, but it's not really a rhetorical totology because of the context of those words.

Zelensky is Churchill is not even close to a totology in either sense of the word. Tucker is using this word to describe beliefs he doesn't like, and I think what he's trying to say is that these are statements that he feels people throw around baselessly. Their statements that are just supposed to be true on their face, no evidence required. But I don't think that people who believe those three statements believe them for no reason. Tucker is acting like they do, but they don't. I could very easily explain why I believe the first two.

Like I could, it wouldn't be difficult and I'd be happy to have Tucker wants sure someone else can take the Zelensky Church Illumina I'm not gonna field that that's not my business I'll take two of the three. Yeah, it's unfortunate that whoever wrote this monologue for Tucker didn't actually study any of this stuff because it's I mean It's a little bit embarrassing when you try to be condescending and you're talking about stuff wrong. Yeah When they went back when they talk logic. Now that is what we share in common with Alex. It is very frustrating to be contentated to

by somebody who is talking bullshit out at the side of their face. But in situations like this, I kind of enjoy it. I mean, I feel bad for people who don't understand what he's talking about. But for me, I'm like, oh, that's embarrassing. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's so fun.

It's so, it's such one of those signs of like, if you're using a $10 word, it's because you don't know what you're talking about, you know? It's just one of those words. It's just one of those words. It seems strange to me the need to inject that word or concept into this because it's shoehorned in in a way that that is very unnecessary Oh, no, it's it might as well be a I'm wearing a genius hat

superiority complex level of like oh see I thought that we all had moved on past Tautologies, but now everybody's throwing topologies left and right. You've got a topology, you've got a topology. Everybody just won't stop topologizing all the time. Yeah. And you're like, actually, you sound like an idiot. I don't know if there's like another colloquial use of that term that he's evoking or something, but definitely doesn't match with colloquial use of Tata.

Yeah, yeah, in the Northeast, they say Tata for all kinds of stuff, you know. That's what they call Coca-Cola. Exactly. It's like, bless your heart in Texas. You know, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Uh-huh. So the US, very uninformed, it turns out.

By this point, it's possible that American citizens are the least informed people in the world. Your average yak herder and Tajikistan knows who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. It's obvious. Does he think some skinny dude in a dress is actually a girl? Come on. That idea would never occur to him.

You've got to be lied to at full volume over a period of years in order to reach conclusions like that. And of course, we have been the media lie. They do. But mostly they just ignore the stories that matter. What's happened to the hundreds of billions of us dollars we've sent to Ukraine? No clue. So there's another commonality with Alex just throwing random transphobic ideas in. Yep. Right now. And necessary. Yep. just throw it in there. So the American public very well may be poorly informed,

particularly about things that are going on in other countries. But I'm not sure where it ranks internationally. What I can say, however, is that Tucker Carlson viewers are almost certainly less informed than the average American. There was a famous survey that was done about a decade back that found that Fox news viewers were the least informed about current events and politics while daily show and NPR viewers were the highest. And just last year, a survey found that Fox watchers were vastly more likely to believe misinformation about climate issues than people who got news from other sources.

Why do they think that is? I would guess it's because their business model is not informing the audience. Oh, okay, that would make sense. Yeah. Yeah, so you think they're doing it on purpose. business model is not informing the audience. Oh, okay, that would make sense. Yeah. Yeah. So you think they're doing it on purpose? Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Okay. And I think that Tucker's following along with that here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that sounds right. I suspect Tucker chose Yak Herder in Tajikistan because Yak in Tajikistan are funny words. They're fun to say. Yeah. I'm not sure he really should defend his transphobia by pointing to Tajikistan though, since that country is headed by it and the authoritarian dictator who's been office in office and stalker was wearing bow ties 1994 he's been in office in 1994. Yeah

It's really easy to find out where the money is going that we sent to Ukraine You can find plenty of mainstream media outlets reporting on this Tucker is pretending that it's some kind of a mystery because it's another shortcut to making himself look legitimate and like a bold truth teller as opposed to a big dumb dumb talking to his audience like they're in grade school. Yeah, I mean the funny part about that of course is that if he were talking about the Iraq war, he would be able to totally legitimately be like, nobody knows where this hundreds of millions of dollars went. And then, but instead he was like like I love the Iraq war the irony

I almost the irony is astounding. I almost guarantee that I could find totally 100% from crossfire 100% I would bet a million dollars you could find a like where is America putting all this money to that yeah I spent so long reading transcripts of crossfire oh god, and I didn't want to do more. Yeah, no, I was reasonable Reasonable nobody blames you. Yeah, yeah, CNN has like the big archive of them and I was going through it And there were a couple that I was like, oh, this could be pretty fucking interesting and then I clicked on it I'm like, oh, it's a no vac as a Has CNN ever apologized? I don't think they have.

Maybe not formally. I really think they should. We need to get Bagala. We need to get Carville. Nobody will apologize for the hell that they have brought upon us. They'll all just act like, no, that's part of business. Fuck you. I don't know if they're responsible for Tucker.

I think they are now. You work for Bill Crystal before that. Bill Crystal's responsible. Bill Crystal's responsible. Oh, that's a big boo boo. So look, man, they're not covering the big stories. Sure. Where's that money going into Ukraine?

First of all, they are. And second, I never fully understand media criticism that is shaped like this. Like why won't they tell you all the information all the time? Is there not a responsibility on the part of some of your audience to seek information

as opposed to it being delivered to you? I feel like, I feel like again, this is an infantilization of the audience. Yeah. Like if the demand of delivering you all the information all the time is not met, then they've failed you. Right.

It's just like, this is dumb. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, because it is an eternal thing that you can say, there will never be all the information. All the information doesn't exist. You cannot get all the information from any source about anything. No.

Period. So you can always be like, well, they're not telling you everything. Fine. Yes, obviously. Because if you told me everything, my brain would explode. And you wouldn't read everything. No, tell me the stuff that I need to know.

The problem is nobody is like quite sure what you need to know. And that gray area is where Tucker works. Yeah. He also is adept at telling you, or not telling you things that he thinks he got you to know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, we don't need to tell you all of that stuff. That would be really important context for you, loving Putin. So, not hear me out on this.

Okay. The media does not cover the big stories. That is... And in media, you're punished for being curious. Like, talker was about Dominion Machines. But he's getting this information from the media. Come again? I mean, he's telling us information that he learned from the media that he is saying doesn't

report on it. Do Nazi blogs cover the media? Fair point. So look, fair point. This is where everything gets real weird. OK. Not only are the media not interested in any of this, they are actively hostile to anybody who is.

In journalism, curiosity is the gravest crime. Yesterday, for example, a former Air Force officer who worked for years in military intelligence came forward as a whistleblower to reveal that the US government has physical evidence of crashed non-human-made aircraft, as well as the bodies of the pilots who flew those aircraft. The Pentagon has spent decades studying

these otherworldly remains in order to build more technologically advanced weapons systems. Okay. That's what the former Intel officer revealed, and it was clear he was telling the truth. In other words, UFOs are actually real, and apparently so is extraterrestrial life. Now we know. In a North country.

I'm sorry? Who's would qualify as a bomb country. I'm sorry! The news would qualify as a bomb shell. I'm sorry! William! But in our country, it doesn't. So, you couldn't have guessed that was where we're going. I did not expect to hear that, uh, one... Pivot to UFOs?

Excuse me, everybody. The movie Independence Day, 100% of documentary. Yes. That's exactly how it worked. Area 51, you go underground. There of documentary. Yes. That's exactly how it worked. Area 51, you go underground, there's aliens. Will Smith. Independence Day is coming up so Will Smith is brought up. And someone, maybe more than one person pointed out

that on our last episode during the wonk shout outs, I did not recognize the... The Will Smith. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I have to say, I was not weirdly, that was not a show that flew in our household. And I, Fresh Prince of Bel Air was one of the restricted lists.

It was the Simpsons, the faces of death movies and fucking Fresh Prince. And I, I, so many of the shows that were like, you can't watch those. And to do with like family systems that my parents thought were like dysfunctional. You know, like, may read with children or.

Right. And that stuff would, and I was like, is the first prince really that like, like a dysfunctional family says, and I was like, is that a race thing? And it's not because we watch family matters all the time. Okay. So, but I don't know. So they were just like a nuclear family only.

Maybe. Because, I mean, the thing is, Will Smith is from a troubled area. What's Philadelphia? Right, and then he goes to live with his family. So, exactly, with his family. But it's a very close-knit family unit. Unit, there are a lot of really important

moments for growth. It's fantastic. Well, I suspect I was thinking about this and I think it might have been a situation where my parents heard the song, my parents just don't understand. And they're parents. Yeah, exactly. They're like, well, if we don't, then we don't. Yeah. And we refused to share. And we will not allow you to watch this man who maligns parents. Unfortunately, we don't understand. And it also might have been, I don't know, might have just been like someone that seemed too cool or something. Fresh prints.

I think what's funny about that is that you instinctively by the bell. You instinctively got the meter though. Like when you read the fresh print you did it in time it was kind of interesting yeah I and let's be let's be totally clear yeah I am a Will Smith cinematic thing his television work I'm not I don't know all that much about what are you gonna do but you talked to me about wild wild west you talked to me about uh bagger fans You talked to me about Bag of Ants. Oh boy, oh man. Struggling to get bring it up back.

I think that, I think, just acknowledging that movie exists is kind of racist now. I feel like we all just agreed to pretend that movie didn't exist. What was that? Seven pounds, Was that him? Was it a name of the movie? No, wasn't it seven grams? No, there's 21 grams. 21 grams. There's the heart transplant one. Seven pounds is a heart. Is that how much? I don't know.

I am legend. I know he wasn't an independent day too. That's true. So Tucker's complaining that you're punished if you're curious in journalism, but then he immediately Unquestioningly accepts the word of a guy who's talking about UFOs and aliens. Yeah, it doesn't seem like what a curious person would do No, that seems a very painfully uncurious. I just I get it and he seemed it's he's from the like Air Force and all that stuff and I get that they've all that stuff but come on man. Come on. Come on man So that's about a guy named David Grush who's made these claims, but I've heard these claims before yeah, and they were bogus Yeah, this could be something but also Grush himself hasn't seen anything

He's reporting things he's heard he has at best secondhand information Which Tucker is just accepting his gospel and like, aliens are here and we have their crafts. It's such a dumb way for him to try and score points on the media by implying that they don't talk about the important stories and call you a cuck if you're curious about this real shit. First of all, every news outlet rant stories out 100%. 100% it was a guy who came out and said that UFOs were real in the government fucking ahead of.

Of course, they're going to run a story on that. I don't know what more coverage Tucker could possibly want. I mean come on. There's no evidence, so it's kind of a dead end at this point about where more coverage is gonna go. So weird. It's just a guy who's talking some shit about how he heard some shit and he filed a report about it.

That doesn't prove the existence of UFOs or aliens, but I guess for Tucker it does. And I have to say, this show is a lot stupider than I thought. Yeah. for Tucker it does and I have to say this show is a lot stupider than I thought yeah like I went in with a little bit of a I expected things to be more grounded than Alex yeah and I don't feel like they are I here's what I here's my here's my feeling all right in general with what I know about space because I'm a big fan of space I'm right about it yeah I've seen it in the past I've looked at All right, in general with what I know about space because I'm a big fan of space.

I've read about it. I've seen it in the past. I've looked at it a few times. It's up there. And down there, it's both. That's a cool thing about it. So it's like Zelda. Is that a lot of people, a lot of the time

whenever people like Tucker are like, well, we've got evidence that people made stuff from off this planet and it landed here and we've got the people who flew those ships. They generally don't understand quite how hard it is to travel through space. Like, it's really hard. Like, really hard.

Yeah, see, what people don't understand is that you think it's just like air, but in space, it's molasses. And no one can hear you scream. Uh-huh. And that's pretty much most of what you do. I do appreciate that it's very difficult. No, but it's really, I mean, I know there's more words, but I need to try and express this

to understand. Really difficult. Also, let's take a step back. All right. Tucker is mad that there isn't like coverage of this. Sure. But he's accepted that there are aliens and that we have UFOs.

Right. Why isn't he freaking out? I would freak the fuck out. If you have internalized that to be true. Totally. Why are you doing a show on Twitter? Oh, I mean, just the idea of just being like, see end of segment.

Like that's what you've got for me. Yeah, why are you mad about Ukraine? We need to go, there's space people. There's space people. There's space people. Yeah. I just, it seems dishonest. If there were an alien craft

that was capable of making it to this planet and it landed, either one we would have no idea what we were looking at or two we would instantly understand how to travel through space. Yeah, I mean, it's crazy. Yeah, and I think that his behavior implies that he is not as convinced by this evidence as he's pretending to be. Yeah. So look, man, why wasn't it on the front page? We need for a page coverage. In a normal country, this news would qualify as a bombshell, the story of the millennium.

But in our country, it doesn't. The whistleblowers account ran on a technology website called The Debrief, which you've probably never heard of. The Washington Post had that story, but decided not to run it. The New York Times being well, this pretended it never happened. On the front page of the New York Times website this morning,

there were five stories about Ukraine, as well as four stories of peace about Donald Trump, trans people, and climate change, the usual lineup. There was nothing at all about how an alien species is flying hypersonic aircraft over our cities. Not one word. Yeah, for good. So if you're wondering why our country seems so dysfunctional, this is a big part of the reason. Because we're not talking about aliens on the

front page. All right, next part, next part. Again, aliens, not country specific, not important to a country. Zero countries don't exist for aliens if an alien lands all the countries want to know if if this were the case countries become a lot less meaningful If we have aliens there are aliens why would but national borders seem silly at the very least France should be like the EU should be like hey If you guys have aliens we need to talk about it, right? Like if you want why are you making it all? It's a meeting in a real country. This would be bombshell no if it were real It's bombshell news to everybody immediately. Yeah, why aren't you complaining about the Guardian

Speakele should be go front page. Oh my god Germans hate aliens like it should be the insane the front page of dirt speed All these articles about Trump exactly like you don't get what it is if you think that it's real But again, this is all just belying the insincereity of the point that he's making it's bullshit Yes, it's absurd. Yeah, so look, they didn't cover aliens. Yeah. And that means that our media is like the Soviet Union. There was nothing at all about how an alien species is flying hypersonic aircraft over our cities. Not one word.

So if you're wondering why our country seems so dysfunctional, this is a big part of the reason. Nobody knows what's happening. A small group of people can't access to all relevant information. And the rest of us don't know. We're allowed to gap all we want about racism. But go ahead and talk about something that really matters. Like aliens.

And see what happens. You keep it up. Sorry, let me... Why? Trust us. That's how they maintain control. When Western tourists first started traveling in large numbers to the Soviet Union in the early 1970s, they found that many Russians had a completely warped understanding of the

United States. They thought that Americans lived in grinding poverty in a state of perpetual race war, and were desperate to flee to the freedom and prosperity of the Eastern bloc. They thought this because that's what they had been told. They had no way to know otherwise. The few Russians who understood what was really going on in the rest of the world had learned about it from listening to shortwave radio broadcasts, sometimes under the covers so the neighbors wouldn't hear.

50 years later it is bewildering to consider the ironies here. We're the ones who live in ignorance now. This is incoherent. Apparently because the New York Times didn't cover this UFO guy on their front page, we're subject to a crushing centrally controlled media like there was in the USSR. This is idiotic. But while we're on the subject of that story, Tucker is telling about the people in the USSR, let's examine that for a second.

He's saying that when Americans went over to Russia, Russian people had a misconception about Americans based on the media that they'd taken in that characterized them in a certain way for political reasons. That's interesting, because that's exactly what Tucker and Alex do. Would it surprise their audience to learn that blue cities aren't constantly on fire, they aren't swallowed up by a perpetual race war, and our streets aren't actually covered with feces and needles It might surprise them like those Russians were surprised. I'm gonna throw this out there It kind of feels even like Tucker and Alex say things like you know

This country is filled with poor Struggling people who are always on the verge of a race war. I feel like that's exactly what they say. Yep. So, so what do we do with that? I mean, do you look at this and say, How, how do you get that that's not fair? That's not fair. That's not, there should be at the very least, listen,

I get it, you can lie, fine. We're never gonna get past truth or freedom of speech, whatever. Sure. I say there should be penalties. All right. Dunk Tank. Totally.

I'm fine with penalties for this type of shit. You can't like, like the Nikki Haley thing. If we have shit from you 25 years ago doing this, you get a penalty. Well, unless that shit from you 25 years ago, you have really wrestled with and owned up to and shown growth from because people can they can grow sure And there is there is the potential for even Tucker Carlson back when you was you know working for the weekly standard or on crossfire to recognize like Hey, there's some some real shitty problematic ways with the way that I engage with

Media and the attention that I engage with media and the attention that I try and accrue. Sure. He has not done that. And that's part of the reason why these 25 years ago are still fairly relevant. Right. And I feel like that's where we're getting into the issue. I actually think what I would say, what I want to say, is with the Nikki Haley thing,

as opposed to the, like the punishment, be like the dunk tank, let's say. That's not because of things you said 25 years ago. It's because you are saying that she said something and then playing a clip of her saying something else. Yes. If you do that, dunk tank. Yes, I'm fine with that.

Yeah. And then while you're in the dunk tank, we can bring up the things you said 25 years ago. Yeah, I mean, so you can think about it while you're under water. Do you know, here's the problem with the 25 years people can grow and change and all that stuff, is generally speaking, if nothing changes for them, they won't grow and change.

So for a Tucker, why would he grow and change? He's only ever been richer and more famous this time has gone on, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, so, but humans are, you know, somewhat unpredictable creatures and, you know, sometimes it can involve life circumstances, it can involve learning, it can involve the relationship that you have with somebody that opens your eyes to a lot of stuff, you know, there, you know, money and success are not necessarily the only things that motivate a change. Sure. And so, I don't know, money and success are not necessarily the only things that motivate a change. Sure.

And so, I don't know. I, look, the reality is that he hasn't done any of that, that recu, rec was it changed that you would need to be like, to understand what he said in context. The reality is dunk tank. Dunk tank. Dunk tank. Yes.

I would say so. Yeah, yeah. But the, the, the thing of thing of like these people in the Soviet Union are being fed all this bullshit that they couldn't see outside of the fact that he and Alex do that. Yeah. Is really annoying, you know? And those Russians thought that Americans

wanted to flee to the USSR, but with people like Alex and Tucker, it's even funnier and worse. Alex and Tucker and all these other right-wing shitheads, like, you know, the Hanities and what have you, they pretend that they want to flee the big cities themselves. Yep. And they don't. No, they're great. Yeah.

We love living here. Yeah. It's absurd. Yeah. I mean, like, Yeah. It's absurd. Yeah. I mean, like I will be the first to admit that I say that I want to flee the big city, but it's not for political reasons. I just want a tree. Yeah. I don't want a bigger yard where I can maybe keep a funny animal. Yeah. Like maybe I get a camel. Oh, camel would be great. Yeah.

I mean, not a camel. You get a llama. You can't have a camel in Illinois. Watch me. You can have a llama in Illinois. Watch me. All right. I'll dress it up like a llama. No, it'll be any of the wiser. Um, but yeah, it's, it's, it's exploitative. I don't think, I mean, again, penalty, if you're a propagandist, fine, that's what you do, but you can't call out other propaganda. It's just wrong. It's just wrong. You should have to pretend like everybody's telling the truth all the time.

Otherwise, you sound crazy. Sure. I mean, what's your, how about snake in a can? Snake in a can for that one? I don't know. Are we only doing cloud-based funtas? Okay, then in that case. Buzzer hand shake.

Giant hand from Jackass. You go back to that one periodically I think you've suggested that a couple times. I know, but I mean it's just it's sometimes you're just it is funny Right, it is right. Yeah, so here's the dismount. Yeah, and already yeah. Yeah, well, I mean, it's only like a 10 minute episode Yeah, that's what I'm reading going for almost almost an hour and a half. Right, right. Of course. Here's where Tucker leaves us. The US government has managed to classify more than a billion so-called public documents. So at this point, we can't possibly know what our leaders are doing. We're not allowed to know.

By definition, that is not a democracy. What? It's a fine with the media. What? What? What? It's a super-seas, a power-flat of control. Stop asking how we got so rich. Here's another story about racism.

Go eat each other. That's the program. What? That's how most of us now live here in the United States, manipulated by lies, silenced by taboos. It is unhealthy and is dehumanizing, and we're tired of it. As of today, we've come to Twitter, which we hope will be the shortwave radio under the blankets. We're told there are no gatekeepers here.

If that turns out to be false, we'll leave. But in the meantime, we are grateful to be here. We'll be back with much more very soon. So yeah, he fancies himself the shortwave under the blankets, which gave the people living in the USSR the select few gave them an accurate presentation of what's going on in the world. Meanwhile, in reality, he's the media that's lying about what the Americans are actually,

the conditions Americans are actually living in. He's the polar opposite of the thing that he's metaphorically positioning himself as. And that's not too surprising, but it is a metaphor. And that is something that Alex can't handle. It's too, it requires too much preparation, or like a forethought to end on a bow. Like he put a bow on it. It's a shitty bow and the present sucks,

but it is at least wrapped. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, here's what's fun. Here's what's fun. I think I like about Tucker and Alex together. All right. It is, it is so, it is so much like a great example of the people think that if you graduated college, it's more about, or whatever it is. This is such a clear version of like, Tucker was better at school. Yeah. Do you know what I mean?

He's not smarter than Alex. He's not, et cetera, or anything along those lines. Probably not. He was better at doing the things at school. Well, he probably also had access to school that would be more pleasant. Like Alex went to Austin Community College and probably didn't see it as like a foray into anything that was going to be useful for him. Whereas Tucker went to like all these elite

private schools and like there was a path there. Totally Alex. If Alex was in that situation, I could see him probably continuing through school. Right, right, right. Well, I mean, that's not the point, the point that I'm making, the point that I'm making is that he is using the superficial trappings of education to say what is, physical, what is meaningfully, no less, nothing more than what Alex says.

Yeah, you know, from a, from a content perspective, from a number of the tricks what Alex says. Yeah, you know, from a content perspective, from a number of the tricks that Alex uses are identical. Yeah. Yeah, and so it is one of those exemplars of the way that we treat appearance over substance. You know, like because Tucker is better able at saying the same exact thing as Alex in a way that is defensible or I mean like better or more educated or any number of different like superficial differences, people allow him to get away with so much more shit.

You know, maybe and also maybe that is also a function of the privilege and social clients. I mean, that the truth. Yeah. And the decades of media involvement and connections and such that he has, yeah, that Alex doesn't. And it's just wild that he's lived down the bow tie. I, I, I come back to that a bit because it's silly. It should have ended.

I thought it was going to end. It would end somebody now. Oh, I think. I don't know. The memes would never end. Yeah, that's probably true. I mean, I genuinely, I mean, I genuinely thought he was going to go away. I really did think, I really did think all the way back when I thought it was going to be.

You mean like in 2004? I mean, yeah, in like 2005, 2006, after that whole thing, and I thought he was just going to be dropped, you know, I thought they were just going to let it go. And then he got stronger, terrifying. It took a while. It did take a while. It did take a while. It did take a while. So I think that I have an interest in covering more of these.

Yeah. I think that, especially since it's a new thing that he's starting, it does somewhat make sense to monitor and track this thing. Yeah. I'd be interested in people's perspective on it, see what they think. I'd like to hear your thoughts when you think about it a little bit. Yeah. But I lost my thought.

I'm not sure. I think that I guess this show is dumb more than I thought. Yeah. I think that the baby talk is like the way he's talking down to the audience is pretty. It's obscene. Yeah. I mean, it is like pornographic in its excess. I was listening to that and I was like, I'd just turn this off.

Yeah. I would not put up with this from a commentator. How dare you, sir? How dare you speak to me like that? Even if I agreed with the things he was saying, I would find it really obnoxious. Talking to me in a really fucked up way. I don't appreciate this. Oh, and the other thought that I had was the,

the things that he's saying are potentially more explicit in terms of their connections to, you know, neo-Nazi-ish white supremacist stuff. Like the ways that he was describing Zalensky, for example, they're more explicit and I think that maybe a function of the fact that he has to prepare. And he has to write these things out, whereas Alex is just running off the cuff. And he'll say some things that are real fucked up in what have you. Right. But he's often talking a mile a minute, and by the time he said them, this is on to something else.

Yeah. Whereas this is very intentional, and very much like a, this is a choice to call him rat-like oppressor of Christians. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, if you wrote something down in advance, that is a little bit more meaningful

than if you're just throwing shit out the top of your brain. Yeah. I have some wonder. I do wonder if this will last. The show? Yeah. No.

I don't know if it's financially viable. I don't know if he's going to be able to satisfy the people he wants to reach. I know that that Andrew Anglin review was not super complimentary as a whole. Because he was like, yeah, he's saying all this stuff that's right about Zelensky and Ukraine and then he gets into UFOs. Yeah. Fucking idiot.

Sure. Whatever. Yeah. So like there is a desire up from that Nazi base to see him go mask off. Yeah. And probably isn't going to do that. Um, who knows to what extent Elon Musk and Twitter will allow. I mean, him to push whatever envelope there is. So I don't know. I feel it seems like a temporary stopgap or whatever, Intel, he can launch something else

that he can make a ton of money on. Yeah, I mean, if you're, now is not the time to hit your wagon to Twitter's future. No, but from what I understand, the reason that he would do this is because he feels that this is not breaking his non-compete clause, because Twitter isn't a competitor to Fox News. Sure.

So that is like the way you get around it. Yeah, yeah. You do this while you're in your non-compete to keep people aware of you, to keep your audience engaged. Yeah. And then as soon as that period is over, you go work for the blaze or something. Yeah, yeah, he's not gonna do. He's not gonna do like work for the blaze or something. Yeah, he's not the blaze.

He's not going to do like a sub stack or something. That's not going to happen. I mean, I guess he doesn't. He's not a writer, but he all, well, he has the daily caller, but he's, I don't think he owns that. Yeah, I think you might have sold it. Yeah. Or he has some staking it. No, he's going to, he's going to have to, I'm going to say this.

He's going to have to do his own thing. And he's's gonna have to do his own thing and he's gonna have to do it for a lot longer than 10 minutes. And that's gonna be the worst part of it. Hmm. People and I, it seems like it would be so easy to continue to do his show. There are so many young aspiring bigots who are capable and no tech and would be able to get him up and running. Yeah, I just don't understand why he wouldn't just be like, okay, fine, I'm making my show

and I'll just put it out on something. Just make your thing, man. Maybe that would be violating the non-combeat, but then it would seem like Twitter would be too. Yeah, I don't know. I'm interested to see how it plays out from just a like, what are you gonna do standpoint? Right.

But this isn't sustainable on its own. No. So we'll see what happens under the covers with the short way. Yeah, great. In the future. But, you know, only if we feel like it. Yeah.

I think it seems like we feel like it. I mean, I expected you to have a much worse time with this. No, no, no, no. This is doable. All right. Yeah. Well, that's good. I think there's something valuable to be had in this.

Yeah. I think it adds to the conversation that we have. Yeah. Yeah. I think the ecosystem that this exists in now has to be viewed as in conversation with itself. You know, like I don't think we can live in a space where we can act like info wars is its own universe anymore. This is all in conversation with itself.

You know, so there's no, to me, there's no separation anymore. You know, like Fox News is info wars is this is that because they're all communicating with each other and adjusting themselves based around all communicating with each other and adjusting themselves based around their equilibrium with each other. You know, like they're all part of the same thing. So anything that we talk about now, we're also talking about Info Wars. Yeah, it's relationship to its connections, its subtle differences. Yeah.

But there are only so many things that fit within the purview of what we do. Sure. And I do think that this somewhat does still fit. Covering something that's on Fox News doesn't quite feel right for one because it's mostly a visual medium. This might as well be audio. I mean, it's Twitter. Yeah. And so, yeah, I don't know, we'll see. Anyway, we'll be back, see how Alex is dealing with the indictments, but until then, we have a website. Indeed we do, it's KnowledgeTry.com. Yep, we're also on Twitter. We are on Twitter.

Much like Chuck's. Oh, and no, no, no, no, nobody's on Twitter. Is that another such a terrifying? Yep, we'll be back. But until then, I'm Neo and Leo and DZX Clark, Skiddy, D-D-Doo, boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, I've made peace with scatting. Oh, you know what, eh. And now, here comes the sex robots. Andy and Kansas, you're on the earth, thanks for holding. B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-