The press make fools of themselves over Tucker Carlson's January 6 videos

It is quite possible that someday one might find [buying and selling] so common and vulgar that, along with all party-literature and journalism, one would classify it as "prostitution of the spirit."

—Friedrich Nietzsche, Die Fröliche Wissenschaft (§31)

Since Tucker Carlson has just released unseen actual footage of the January 6 riot at the Capitol that the January 6 Committee did not bother to look at and that appears to contradict the official bipartisan swamp storyline, a plethora of what now passes for "journalists" have materialized to smear Carlson.  They join what masquerades as our elected "representatives" on both sides of the aisle, including comrades Romney and McConnell, who are doing the same. 

Carlson made specific allegations based on the security videos taken at the Capitol that day — that the videos shows that "QAnon Shaman" Jacob Chansley did not lead the mob into the Capitol, as many have claimed, that he was peaceful, that Capitol Police officers even opened doors for him, that he led a prayer thanking the Capitol Police, that Officer Brian Sicknick was alive 30 minutes after he was allegedly killed by the pro-Trump mob, etc.

Carlson called for lawbreakers on that day to be punished.  Carlson also pointed out that several members of the bipartisan swamp continue to make verifiably false statements that five Capitol Police officers were killed by the mob that day.  Several died several days later of natural causes; they were not killed by Trump-supporters.  The only person killed that day was an unarmed woman, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by a Capitol policeman.

Tucker's unwelcome infusion of evidence into the elitist swamp storyline, crafted by an ABC producer hired by the January 6 Committee to dazzle the serfs, did not make the Democrat-Media Theatre Department happy. 

They could have produced videos showing Jacob Chansley behaving violently or established that the person Carlson claimed to be Brian Sicknick, alive 30 minutes after he was supposed to be killed by the mob, is a case of mistaken identity.

Since, however, they cannot refute Carlson's claims by citing actual evidence, which actually requires one to know something and do real work, they began to do what they standardly do: to frame the issue by smearing Carlson so that people will not even want to view the newly released videos. 

One of the more curious articles to smear Carlson is an old recycled 2021 article by Maroosha Muzaffar of The Independent, titled "Tucker Carlson admits he lies on his show: 'I really try not to [but] I certainly do.'"  Unfortunately, Maroosha does not appear able to read his own article.  After admitting that "I lie if I'm really cornered," Carlson explicitly states, as Maroosha himself quotes him, that "I [Tucker] try never to lie on TV." 

When Carlson admits that he sometimes lies, he is, presumably, referring to the mundane fact that many of us lie in certain circumstances — e.g., to one's sister-in-law: "Hazel, I really love your Spam-blood-pudding sandwiches."  It would not be surprising if Mother Teresa sometimes told these kinds of lies because they are just ways of not hurting someone's feelings, not morally blameworthy in any way.  However, Maroosha has a word, "lie," that can be exploited for his political agenda.  Tucker's mistake, in admitting that he sometimes lies, is to try to be honest with dishonest people who will literally use anything, even an admission of "lies" about someone's gag-inducing Spam-blood-pudding sandwiches, as props for their political agenda.

Similarly, Ed Mazza of the Huffington Post purports to expose Carlson's Most Unsettling TV Habit: his alleged "cackle."  Admittedly, Tucker does have an odd laugh, but it is certainly not a Kamala-class cackle.  Carlson recently had a Kamala-cackle impersonator on his show, so it is very important to the left to accuse him of exactly what Kamala actually does.  "Tu quoque!"  Unfortunately, Carlson's laugh has nothing whatsoever to do with the newly released January 6 footage.  Bringing it up serves only two purposes: first, to ridicule Carlson with some negativity, however minor, and, second, to divert from the fact that Carlson's new videos expose some apparent falsehoods in the bipartisan establishment's claims about the January 6 Capitol riot.

Another curious article recycled to distract from the Carlson's new Capitol videos is a 2003 David Moye Huffington Post article in which Carlson's apparent suggestion that Bill O'Reilly is a fake is actually a description of himself. 

Another by Josephine Harvey of the Huffington Post reports that Carlson says in private texts that he hates Trump passionately (although we haven't seen the context of the quotes yet).  

Another, by Graig Graziosi of The Independent, reports that Anderson Cooper said that Tucker Carlson would have been wetting his pants if he had been at the Capitol riot.  One assumes that Anderson would have been checking this had he been there as well. 

The same story is told by Graham Gremore of Queerty, using the profanity essential to make the kiddies at the ninth-grade lunch table giggle, who states that "Anderson Cooper expertly shades pants-pissing Tucker Carlson over his b------- January 6 report."  Of what logical significance is "shading"?  One could go on indefinitely.  In a critical reasoning course, these would be called "red herring" fallacies used to divert attention from Carlson's new evidence.

Some, comically, accuse Carlson of "cherry-picking" Capitol riot videos when that is precisely what was done by their beloved January 6 Committee of anti-Trump partisans.  "We can cherry-pick videos to our hearts' content, but you're not allowed to balance the record!"  How convenient! 

What all of these articles have in common is that they make no serious effort whatsoever to address Carlson's specific claims about what is shown in the newly released videos, which tells one everything one needs to know about them.  Instead, all focus on diversion, often infantile, and that is their purpose.  Such articles signal to the peasants that our elite bipartisan overlords have their storyline and are sticking with it.  New evidence is not welcome.  Their multi-millions and power to push people around depend on it. 

Nietzsche's 1882 point was that when buying and selling become common and vulgar, then even opinions and smears will come to be bought and sold.  One can now tune in to MSNBC to watch buffoonish elitists who have negotiated massive salaries of evil capitalist dollars for themselves ridicule capitalism.  There are some professions that cannot allow shame. 

Image: Screen shot from Fox News video via YouTube.

If you experience technical problems, please write to