Correction — September 9, 2026: An earlier version of this post swapped the names the wrong way. The intended thought experiment replaced the name Tucker Carlson with Adolf Hitler. The text below has been corrected.
At
the September 3 White House briefing, Kerry Picket of the Washington Times
asked JD Vance about his friendship with Tucker Carlson, who has called for the
president’s impeachment and uses his platform to spread vile smears against the
Jewish people and hateful rhetoric about Israel. Instead of disavowing that
friendship—which the Jews and most of the GOP keep hoping he’ll do—he doubled
down. Friendships (apparently even with despicable antisemites), the VP says,
shouldn’t bend to politics.
“I’m
not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have
political disagreements with them.”
Because
loyalty, Vance says, is what holds the republic together.
It
sounds good: loyalty and friendships binding the nation together. But let’s run
a thought experiment with the briefing transcript. Let’s qualify the kind of
company this man Vance keeps and swap the name “Tucker Carlson” with “Hitler.”
Would
JD’s loyalty to a friend with that name help America, or hurt it?
And
if JD Vance becomes president, will his friendship with an antisemite make
things better for Americans—or worse?
What
do you think?
***
Kerry Picket: Vice President, Adolf Hitler has called for the president's impeachment, and many accuse him of trying to jeopardize U.S.-Israel relations. What do you say to those who are uneasy with your close relationship with Hitler and claim that you're avoiding addressing a lot of these issues, which may be causing divisions within the GOP?
JD Vance: Well, look, I'm not avoiding addressing anything. Everybody knows that Adolf Hitler and I are friends. And I think it's very obvious that Hitler has said some things that I disagree with. He said some things about the president of the United States that I think are just wrong . . .
. . . And I remember when I became the vice presidential nominee, one of the hardest things for me personally is not when people attacked me, but when people attacked my wife, including friends of hers who knew her heart, who knew what a good person she was. And I remember thinking to myself, what a travesty it is that in the United States of America, we let political disagreements define who our friends are going to be and not going to be. So yeah, Hitler is a friend of mine.
Hitler is a friend, despite the fact that we disagree on a number of things. And I'm not going to play the game where I throw Nazi friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them. I think that is a terrible place for the United States to go. And if you have a disagreement with a Nazi friend politically, even over a deeply held issue, you should still be friends with that Nazi person, because the whole republic depends on people of different perspectives being able to talk to one another.
That's how I try to live my life, and I encourage everybody else to do the same. All right. Let's -- let's go -- let's go to, um --
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
I wasn’t going to watch the full Carlson/Huckabee debate.
The few excerpts I watched were enough to know how it went. Carlson was an
attack dog, throwing out so many falsehoods so rapidly, that it was impossible
for Huckabee to refute them. Huckabee was well-meaning, but Carlson was not. He
was using a well-known debate technique, called the “Gish gallop,” which made
it impossible for Huckabee to answer him in any meaningful way.
The term “Gish gallop” was coined by anthropologist Eugenie
Scott of the National Center for Science Education, who named it after
creationist Duane Gish, who used this rhetorical strategy often, during
the 1980s and 90s. The Gish gallop involves overwhelming one’s opponent with a rapid-fire,
relentless torrent of weak arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations,
making it impossible to adequately refute each point in real-time. Scott described
the Gish gallop as an uneven debate, "where the creationist is allowed to
run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the
evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.”
The main goal of the Gish gallop is to create the appearance
of winning by sheer volume of points rather than quality or accuracy. Today,
the strategy is used to argue all sorts of things, politics, animal rights, and,
in the case of Tucker Carlson, the assertion that Jews are evil creatures who
commit genocide and who have no right to their indigenous territory, Israel.
The Gish gallop tactic exploits an asymmetry: Making a claim
takes only seconds, but refuting a claim may take several minutes. Practically
speaking, if someone throws out 10 questionable assertions in two minutes, it
can take 20 minutes or more for their opponent to carefully address them. The imbalance
between the two sides creates the appearance that the galloper “won” because
many of their points went unanswered.
Carlson repeatedly told Huckabee that he wasn’t answering
his questions, though Huckabee did his level best, explaining and explaining
the facts over and over again, never losing his patience. Tucker pressed the
ambassador to describe the borders of the Land of Israel, which the ambassador
did over and over again. Tucker demanded that Huckabee prove that the Jews of
today are the Jews of yesterday, falsely asserting that Netanyahu’s father
didn’t speak Hebrew. Huckabee answered him, but Tucker kept saying he hadn’t
answered him:
Tucker Carlson: [I] have two questions. What are the borders of that? And who
are those people in 2025? And you’re not the first person I’ve asked, but
you’re the most reasonable, most gentle, most theologically informed. So I’m
really hoping for an answer.
The first question was the borders. I can’t get an answer
on those borders, so I’m going to give up. But the second question is every
bit as pressing — which is, who are the people? Who are the modern descendants?
So we know, and I believe, and I agree with you as a Christian, that God
promised this land from modern-day Iraq to modern-day Egypt to this people, the
Jews — to Abram’s descendants, as it says in Genesis 15. Who are his
descendants now? And how do we know who they are?
Mike Huckabee: I think they’re the Jews. And we know who
they are because they’ve always been a Jewish people. There has been an
unbroken line of Jewish people, and they’ve lived in this land for 3,800 years.
Sometimes not very many of them, because they were chased out all over the
world. They were hunted down. They were almost annihilated during the
Holocaust. They came back. Tucker, they represent — you know how many Jews
there are in the whole world —
Tucker Carlson: Please. I understand. First of all, the
greatest genocide of Jews that no one ever mentions was by the Romans, where
they were literally banned from Jerusalem for 500 years.
Mike Huckabee: Yeah, of course.
Tucker Carlson: And it’s all awful. And I’m opposed to all
of that. I’m opposed to mass killing of anybody, period. I mean it.
Mike Huckabee: Yeah.
Tucker Carlson: And I hope you agree on that.
Mike Huckabee: I believe that.
Tucker Carlson: My question is — and it’s not a bumper
sticker answer, it’s a sincere question — how do we know? Because what you’re
saying is that certain people have a title to a highly contested region. They
own it in some deep sense. So I think it’s fair to ask, who are they and how do
we know?
The current prime minister’s ancestors weren’t from here
within recorded history. He has no deeds. Bibi Netanyahu, on one side, has
family from Poland. They’re from Eastern Europe. So how do we know that he has
a connection to the people whom God promised the land to — Abram’s descendants?
How do we know that?
Mike Huckabee: Well, if you take the genealogies that come
not only from the Old but the New Testament, you see that there is a historical
connection through the entirety of the Old and the New Testament that details
the Jewish connection to this land.
Tucker Carlson: Does that include Bibi’s family? How do we
know that if his family scattered? But how do we know it’s the same people? Why
is that crazy? If you say to me —
Mike Huckabee: If they speak the same language, if they
worship the same God, if they follow the same Bible, if they follow the same
cultures and traditions — and they always pray “next year in Jerusalem,” and
they pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and they pray facing toward Jerusalem —
does that not give you a little bit of a clue as to who they are?
Tucker Carlson: Let’s go through those things, because I
would like to have a rational — this is the conversation I’ve wanted.
Mike Huckabee: Bless you.
Tucker Carlson: Thank you for doing this. Let’s just go
through those things.
Mike Huckabee: Okay.
Tucker Carlson: So one of the things I admire most about
Israel is they resurrected a dead language in 1948. Good for them.
Mike Huckabee: Well, they really didn’t resurrect it — it
was existent.
Tucker Carlson: That’s not — but that’s a compliment. I’m
not slightly —
Mike Huckabee: No, no, no. But it is the first time in all
of human history that a language has survived through this length of time. I
would call it — you might not — but I would call it a miracle, one of many.
That you can —
Tucker Carlson: I think it’s wonderful. As someone who loves
language — Netanyahu’s parents did not speak Hebrew.
Mike Huckabee: Okay.
Tucker Carlson: They didn’t live in this region. The
founders of this country were mostly secular. Some of them were avowed
atheists. They were not praying for the peace of Jerusalem. They weren’t
praying at all because they didn’t believe in God. There’s no genealogy linking
their families to the people of this land 3,000 years ago. So how do we know —
since they didn’t share a language, they didn’t share a religion, they had no
religion whatsoever — how do we know that they had a right to come here from
Eastern Europe and —
Mike Huckabee: But they were scattered.
Tucker Carlson: — the land.
Mike Huckabee: They were scattered to — they were scattered
all over the world. There were many in Ethiopia. They were in Russia. They were
in Poland. They were throughout Asia. Jews were all over the place. But they
were still Jews. But they were still Jews.
Mike Huckabee answered him and answered him, but how much
information does he have offhand to respond to the torrent of questions and
falsehoods. For example, it’s not true that Netanyahu’s father didn’t speak
Hebrew. But how would Huckabee know these details? It wasn’t a fair fight, and
anyway, Huckabee wasn’t fighting. Only Carlson was fighting, or perhaps more
accurately, attacking.
Anyone who has been pulled into debate with internet trolls
knows how this goes. The trolls bombard you with questions and so-called facts
so that you never get the chance to even try to respond to a single point.
Should one manage to get a point across, the troll will respond with a torrent
of word vomit—something along the lines of, “But what about this? What about
that? I guess you don’t want to answer, because you know I’m right.”
Carlson is the very prototype of the troll. A particularly
hateful and combative one. Who loves to spread falsehoods about the Jews, and can
spew them a mile a minute. The Gish gallop is how Tucker rolls. Because he is
incapable of honest debate.
The Gish gallop is a coward’s form of debate, because the
tactic relies more on cognitive overload than on strong argumentation. And as I
said, I wasn’t going to watch over two hours of that, but then I saw an article
asserting that Tucker’s maniacal laughter is a sign of clinical
mental illness. That was enough to make me want to listen to the entire
agonizing two hour and 42 minute interview. I was curious—I wanted to see if
the theory held water. In the end, I was very aggravated to discover that
Tucker didn’t actually engage in his characteristic hyena-like laughter, which
means that I basically listened to the whole thing for nothing.
Worse yet, it triggered spam from Carlson inviting me to subscribe. Feh. As if.
There’s one thing one can say about Carlson, and that’s that
he has stamina. Which is the key component of the successful use of the Gish
gallop. Bless Mike Huckabee for trying to refute him, but you might as well
teach a waterfall to go up instead of down.
I wish Huckabee had spoken to Carlson in private—that it
hadn’t become performative—a show for Carlson’s audience. But Carlson would
never have given Huckabee the opportunity. Because it wouldn’t have served his
need to generate clicks and views, and spreading Jew-hate is always a popular
sport.
JD has a weird thing going on with his dog Tucker Carlson/Youube
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
I started out writing something totally different, tonight.
Something about the dangers of a Vance presidency considering his arrogant comments at
TPUSA. The things the vice president said bear out my belief that JD Vance is not just an
isolationist, but a hater as well. In fact, the isolationism may only be cover for his true feelings about Jews. Who knows? But according to JD Vance, I am definitely allowed to say these things. As an American.
As I looked at all that wealth of information relating to hate among conservatives, I happened on a debate between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan about whether Israel qualifies as an "ally." I was appalled and nauseated by both men.
I created a transcript of their debate when I couldn't find a good one online. I am sharing it here for the benefit of those, who like me, prefer text, having no patience with video. I read fast, and would far rather read a transcript then space out as two arrogant men pontificate. Perhaps some of my readers share my preference for text.
But first a few (okay, so not a few) prefatory comments.
I called it right when I was taken aback by Vance’s reaction to a motion to declare sovereignty in Judea and Samaria coming before
the Knesset just as Vance’s plane was arriving at Lod Airport. When asked by a
reporter how the vice president felt about that, he said that it was weird and insulting.
Not long after that, there was a bit of a ruckus on X when it was discovered that JD's assistant is Buckley Carlson, none other than the
son of Tucker Carlson. This, we are made to believe, is perfectly normal. Besides, said Vance, we have no right to judge the son
according to the father. He was disgusted by any suggestions to the contrary.
Sloan Rachmuth is a "journalist" who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn't like the views of his father.
Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it's a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a… https://t.co/bjFVuM2yBI
But while we aren't free to say what we think, Vance is. Tucker is his friend. It's okay to listen to
his hate speech and conspiracy theories. Which makes me wonder if Vance thinks that, in theory, it would be okay to laugh
at the victims of Bondi Beach or to listen to someone laugh at that, as if that were a totally normal thing to do. Nothing worthy of remark. Because freedom.
This would, after all, be the perfect application of Tucker
Carlson’s "principles" as outlined by Carlson and Piers Morgan, in their February
2025 debate.
Just now at TPUSA, we had an opportunity to see how people are lining up. We heard things like, “We can have a
conversation about that.”
What does it mean to JD Vance, Candace Owens, Megyn
Kelly, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, to have a "conversation?" It means they
are permitted to hate Israel and the Jews—and that it is their right as Americans to
express that hate openly—even in hearing of little children, if they wish.
Commenting on the the coming out of Megyn Kelly at TPUSA, my Facebook friend Moshe Z. Matitya said, "The overnight transmogrification of the big RW influencers feels like something straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
"The first tweet from Megyn Kelly below is from 2 months ago; the second one is from two days ago."
Moshe shared two screenshots of Kelly's X posts.
To JD Vance and his associates, perhaps, this is the essence of what it means to be free. The right to express hateful views and also to remain
friends with those who express them. In theory, this would make it okay to say
that a little Australian girl deserved to die. And then lie about it.
Because that would be their right. As Americans. The supreme application of freedom in the good old USA.
***
TRANSCRIPT: Piers Morgan on The Tucker Carlson Show February 8, 2025 · 12:51 a.m.
Piers Morgan: Why do you support Israel against Hamas, for example? Why do you support America giving them billions of dollars? Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t.
Piers Morgan: You don’t support Israel being supported by America? Tucker Carlson: Well, I… support Israel in the sense that I really like Israel. I brought my family on vacation.
Piers Morgan: But do you agree with America supplying them with a lot of arms? Tucker Carlson: To the extent that it helps the United States, I’m for it, of course. I think what we need is—
Piers Morgan: So you do believe in America interfering in countries a long way away. It just depends which country. Tucker Carlson: No. I, I—
Piers Morgan: Your principle, it doesn’t really apply in Israel. Tucker Carlson: I’ll articulate it for the third time, just to be totally clear. I believe the United States, like every country, should, to the extent that it can, act on behalf of its own people and their perceived interests. We can debate what those interests are.
Piers Morgan: But that doesn’t apply in Israel. Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what you mean.
Piers Morgan: America is supporting Israel because it’s an ally. Tucker Carlson: I don’t even know what those words mean. I’m just saying my principle is—
Piers Morgan: I mean, but isn’t it—they’re an ally, right? I mean, they both know what— Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what that means to be an ally. I mean, we have no—
Piers Morgan: It means that when Israel wants to attack in Gaza and attack Hamas, America will help it because it’s its ally. Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally.
Piers Morgan: So it gives it billions of dollars’ worth. Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally, okay?
Piers Morgan: Well, it fundamentally does. Tucker Carlson: I have no greater allies than my own children. When they come to me and say, “I want to do this,” I assess whether it’s good for them or not. If I don’t think it is, I don’t support it.
Piers Morgan: Right. Tucker Carlson: Because they’re my true allies. They’re my children.
Piers Morgan: But why would you support America getting involved in Israel? Tucker Carlson: Just because a country that’s your ally says, “I want to do this,” does not mean axiomatically you support it. Maybe it’s not good for you or me.
Piers Morgan: So do you support America supporting Israel to the tune of billions of dollars? Tucker Carlson: It depends. If you can make—
Piers Morgan: What’s in America’s interest? Tucker Carlson: It depends in all cases. It’s not just about Israel.
Piers Morgan: But do you support what’s happening then in the support in the attacks in Gaza, for example? Because I don’t see the difference between that and what’s happening in Ukraine. This is a long way away from America. There’s no direct involvement with America. There’s no mainland involvement with America. And yet you think it’s right that America supports Israel. Put words in your mouth. But you don’t think it’s right— Tucker Carlson: I don’t think those are the words that came out of my mouth.
Piers Morgan: You don’t think it’s right America supports Ukraine when Russia invades it? Tucker Carlson: I have a simple solution. Let me explain what I think, and then that way we’ll get—
Piers Morgan: Am I wrong? Tucker Carlson: We’ll get right to what I think.
Piers Morgan: Am I wrong? Tucker Carlson: I actually tuned out midway through. I’m not exactly sure what you said.
Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right. Tucker Carlson: I did, I did, I did, I did.
Piers Morgan: Just because I’m right. You can’t tune out. Tucker Carlson: I didn’t follow everything you said.
Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right. Tucker Carlson: No, it was more a lecture about what I think, and then I’m like, “Wait, I know what I think. I think I’m the world’s expert on what I’m thinking. I think I’m the uncontested premier of my own head.”
Piers Morgan: That is true. Tucker Carlson: So, I’m going to unload its contents on you right now.
Piers Morgan: Explain what is America’s national interest in Israel? Tucker Carlson: I’ll define the parameters as well, because I’m happier with that, okay? I would say I support the right of all sovereign nations to act within what they believe is their own interest. (laughing) Like we don’t always know our own interest in our personal lives or between nations. Like, we think it’s good for us, but it may not be. The vodka in the morning analogy. Not good, actually, but I thought it was. Now I know it’s not. But to the extent that we think we know, I think countries should act on behalf of their own citizens. That’s the basic idea in democracy. Okay? And there’s certainly—you could make a case that whatever we’re giving to Israel this year in the form of direct aid, military assistance, loan guarantees, however we’re doing it, is good for the United States. I think you just have to make that case.
Piers Morgan: Why is it good for the United States? Tucker Carlson: Well, you could make that case.
Piers Morgan: But why is it? Tucker Carlson: I’m not convinced.
Piers Morgan: What is the case? Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t know. You’d have to be an advocate for it. You are a vociferous advocate for it. So why don’t you tell me?
Piers Morgan: For what? Tucker Carlson: For U.S. aid to Israel in the current conflict.
Piers Morgan: Actually, I haven’t expressed a view about that at all. I’m just curious about your… the difference in your— Tucker Carlson: You’re not an Israel hater, are you? Why do you hate Israel?
Piers Morgan: Not at all. Not at all. Tucker Carlson: Why are you attacking Israel? I don’t know why. What problem do you have with Israel, Piers?
Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel. Tucker Carlson: The press likes this. They secretly hate Israel.
Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel whatsoever. Tucker Carlson: It feels like you do. Is Netanyahu a dictator?
Piers Morgan: Actually, I don’t like Netanyahu. I think you should— Tucker Carlson: You hate Israel.
Piers Morgan: I think you should go. Let me, just, I’m going to ask you one more time— Tucker Carlson: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Piers Morgan: Hang on. Hang on. Tucker Carlson: Now we’re getting into… I’m not comfortable with this.
Tucker Carlson: Here’s my question. Should I be platforming you? That’s my question. You just said you don’t like Netanyahu. Piers Morgan: I’m trying to work out whose brand suffers more when we platform each other. But let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.
Tucker Carlson: All right, I’m going to need a second.
Piers Morgan: One more time, just quietly for the people at the back. You don’t like America getting involved in helping Ukraine against Russia because there’s no national interest for America in doing that in your eyes. Tucker Carlson: Well, there’s a negative national interest.
Piers Morgan: Okay. Tucker Carlson: I found one.
Piers Morgan: So I get that. Tucker Carlson: We’re losing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency because of this war.
Piers Morgan: All right. Fine. Tucker Carlson: There’s no greater national interest.
Piers Morgan: Your position is America first. There’s no interest for America. Shouldn’t be doing it. Every country should act for this. It’s a problem between Ukraine and Russia. Okay, that’s fine. A lot of people have that view. I respect it. What I can’t understand is the difference in your logic and principle about supporting Israel in its war with Hamas, which is many thousands of miles away from America. There’s no direct— Tucker Carlson: If I’ve been a great advocate for the war in Gaza, I missed that part of the conversation.
Piers Morgan: Well, you support America supporting Israel. Tucker Carlson: No.
Piers Morgan: You don’t support America supporting Ukraine. Tucker Carlson: No. I don’t support America supporting any nation on the planet to its own detriment. Every element of our foreign policy should serve the United States.
Piers Morgan: Okay. Tucker Carlson: That’s the point of our government: to serve the people who live there, called citizens. That’s what democracy is. There’s no other reason. So, if I’m in charge of a country and I decide, actually, I should do this because people who pay me want me to do it or I’m making money to do it, then I’m by definition illegitimate. That’s not democracy. That is a species of oligarchy or whatever. You could assign a name to it. That’s not democracy. So I just believe in our system, and our leaders should act on behalf of their own people or what they think is their own people’s interests. And I would apply that to Israel. I’d apply it to Ukraine. I think there have certainly been times where we have benefited from our alliance with Israel. You know, it’s an alliance. Just like we have an alliance with our country?
Piers Morgan: They are allies then. Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what ally means.
Piers Morgan: It’s short for alliance. Tucker Carlson: Yeah, you’re right. It is.
Piers Morgan: Yes! Tucker Carlson: It’s so funny. I never knew that.
Piers Morgan: I’ve got you. Tucker Carlson: You got me.
Piers Morgan: You’ve literally just— Tucker Carlson: When it comes to etymology, you are the unchallenged king.
Back in April, I asked a question: Is
Tucker Carlson a Covert Antisemite? To my mind, there is no question that he
is, but people understand things in different ways. Some want proof rather than
this author’s interpretation of Carlson’s words and deeds.
In a way, that is the point. There likely will never be proof.
This is why I refer to Carlson’s brand of antisemitism as “covert.” It’s slippery
and slimy. It’s about pushing the boundaries as far as he can go without going
over the line. Carlson goes just far enough in what he says, the words just shy
of, “I hate Jews.”
Some Jews are unfortunately too nice. They are not
interested in believing the worst of a person. So, short of Carlson shouting
into a megaphone, “I hate Jews,” the benefit-of-the doubter Jews will doggedly insist
on proof. “Can you prove it?” and since Carlson neverleaves much of a
trail, you’ve got no way to do so. Not that I make much effort to persuade
them. Either they do or don’t believe that Tucker Carlson is an antisemite.
Aside from requiring proof of Tucker’s antisemitism, there’s
another factor in play for those who just don’t buy it. Some Jews don’t want to
believe that Tucker is an antisemite because they otherwise agree with his
Conservative politics. Since they agree with Tucker on so many other things,
they pooh-pooh any suggestion that Carlson, at heart, hates Jews.
I noted the same phenomenon when I wrote about RFK
Jr.’s antisemitism. Some readers were upset. They said to me, “Can you
prove it?” and they aren’t even Democrats.
There is irony in the sudden request for proof of
antisemitism in the case of RFK Jr. The same readers challenging me to bring them
cold, hard evidence that Tucker is a Jew-hater, are like me, generally
hypersensitive to antisemitic undertones and nuances. What made them look the
other way from the empirical evidence this time, and hold their nose at the
stench, was RFK Jr.’s stance on vaccination, with which they agree.
To all of these naysayers, I will, unlike Tucker Carlson,
declare myself out and out: Of course I can’t prove it. But that doesn’t mean I
don’t know it.
Tucker Carlson will not be coming out of the Jew-hate closet
any time soon, at least not on purpose. He’ll never say the words out loud. And
some Jews will always insist on his innocence. Even after much proof, such
as a recent Tucker Carlson interview with Douglas Macgregor, a
retired US colonel, about the war in Ukraine, as captured by the Israel
Advocacy Movement.
Macgregor, like Tucker Carlson, understands how to say just
enough to escape any overt accusations of antisemitism. His words hint at hatred
without actually saying the J word out loud. Like here, where all the people Macgregor
references are Jewish:
Tucker Carlson: How would you characterize Zelenskyy?
Douglas Macgregor: He was picked and then blessed by
Victoria Nuland and the State Department as their man. Now, when he originally
ran for office, he ran on a peace platform. Ukrainians didn't want to go to war
with Russia. Of course, once he was in there, he took a different road, and I
can't help but think that that road was defined for him by us.
Tucker Carlson: Who is Victoria Nuland?
Douglas Macgregor: Ah, goodness gracious, all these hard
questions, Tucker! I do not know Victoria Nuland, personally. I know Fred Kagan,
and his brother Bob is married to her and she's a long-term committed neocon. No,
I don't think she understands the gravity of the situation. These are the same
people. Tony Blinken is in this.
These are people with this agenda and the agenda says until
the entire world is garrisoned by US forces and is converted forcibly to some
form of democracy that we approve of, uh, the world will not be safe, and we
must continue to fight, and I think in in the case of Russia, Russia has special
appeal, because I think these people have ancestors who come from that region
in the world, and have a permanent ax to grind with the Russians. Now of
course, which I don't, and I don't think most Americans do, and nor do I think
anybody in the government should shape policy based on whatever unhappiness
their ancestors, you know, experienced in a place like Russia.
Tucker then asks Macgregor why both Democrats and
Republicans support Ukraine.
Douglas Macgregor: Well, first of all you've got to go through
and identify the donors. What's their background; where did they come from; and
why do they feel the way they do? I think there're more personal issues there
than we realize with many of them.
Macgregor, this whole time, is talking about Jews. And Tucker
never once calls him out for airing antisemitic conspiracy theories. Tucker
Carlson is quite happy to interview this man and air his views for his
listeners. Why? Is it about freedom of speech?
No. It’s about antisemitism. And no I don’t have proof. You
either see it and believe it or you don’t.
We shouldn’t mind the people who don’t want to admit Carlson
is an antisemite because they like his politics. They’re just fooling
themselves. It’s the benefit-of-the-doubter Jews who are worrisome. They are
like the Jews who waited too long to leave Europe, because Hitler and his goose-stepping
fans were not to be taken seriously. They thought that Hitler and his Nazis were just a flash in the pan. Germany
wouldn’t let a Holocaust happen.
By the time these Jews understood that Hitler was not some
temporary nuisance but manifestly evil, the gates had already closed and they could not leave. Which is a common
theme in Jewish history. Jews don’t want to believe someone can be evil. They won’t believe it until it is absolutely proven—like when they see smoke coming
out of an Auschwitz crematorium, or watch people walk into a shower and never come out.
That is far too late.
For Jews, in particular, it is crucial to recognize that some people really are bad. And the last thing you want from them is proof.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Tucker Carlson is in the news because he just got dumped by Fox News. Some say it’s because of the lawsuit filed by former head of booking for the Tucker Carlson Tonight show, Abby Grossberg, against the network and several individuals at Fox, including Carlson. Grossberg says she “endured an extremely hostile work environment” and was subjected to antisemitic treatment by Alexander McCaskill and Justin Wells, both senior producers for Carlson’s show.
Carlson is accused of misogyny in Abby Grossberg’s suit—though not antisemitism. That hasn’t stopped the media from suggesting otherwise by
seeming to lump him together with McCaskill in blaring headlines about the suit
and perhaps with good reason: the scent of antisemitism does seem to cling to
Carlson, though there is never anything overt one can point to—no proof that
Tucker Carlson hates Israel or the Jews.
In a 2021 piece for Haaretz, “Tucker Carlson Is Now a Big Problem for pro-Israel
Conservatives” Jonathan S. Tobin writes, “One of the things that sets Carlson
apart from virtually any other prominent conservative figure is his distinct
lack of enthusiasm for Israel.”
On the Carlson show, the barbarous Assad regime in Syria is justified for its supposed defense of Syrian Christians. Worries about Iran or even criticism of President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Tehran — as much of a Republican mantra as opposition to Obamacare — is never heard.
Nor, for that matter, is any direct criticism of Israel. It is, like Sherlock Holmes' "Hound of the Baskervilles," the dog that never barks on Fox at 8pm EST.
Even when he hosts figures from the left who are well-known for their hate for Israel, such as Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, a notorious BDS advocate, the Jewish state never gets mentioned. The same is true for frequent guest journalist Glenn Greenwald, another supporter of the Palestinians. Greenwald discusses his disdain for Big Tech censorship on Carlson’s show, but not the Middle East.
While Carlson never bashed Trump for his historic support for Israel, he seized any chance he could to single out the administration figures most closely associated with the Jewish state for attention and often vicious critique.
Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner was a particular object of Carlson’s vitriol. Former UN ambassador Nikki Haley — a favorite for Republican Jews and a 2024 hopeful who can likely count on the pro-Israel community’s support if she runs — is another Carlson punching bag.
Tucker Carlson: "No one has more contempt for Donald Trump's voters than Jared Kushner and no one expresses it more frequently." https://t.co/x9PtN3TIry
That lack of enthusiasm has expressed itself
is through his pooh-poohing of the Iranian nuclear threat and its quest for regional
hegemony. More from Jonathan Tobin, this time from his 2021 piece, Why
are Tucker Carlson and Peter Beinart trying to help Iran?:
[While] Trump was careful not to get suckered into a war, [his]
vigorous approach to Iran, including the killing of its top terrorist—the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Gen. Qassem Soleimani—met with Carlson’s
disapproval. To his dismay, Trump’s policies on Iran were not much different
from the positions of the dreaded neo-conservatives that Carlson despises . . .
Carlson’s reaction to Biden’s attack on the terrorists who
killed an American last week was brutal, accusing the administration of “killing
strangers” in a “far-away land” and bringing “war back to the Middle East after
four years.” He mocked the idea that ISIS was a threat to the West and sees no
need for “counter-terrorism” measures. He also defended the brutal Assad regime
in Syria. Like Beinart, despite its genocidal threats towards Israel and his
aggression towards Arab states in the region, Carlson dismisses the whole idea
that the United States needs to do anything about Iran.
Curiously, Carlson is an outlier when it comes to the issue
on which nearly all Republicans move in lockstep: Israel . . . In contrast with
other Fox shows and other conservative venues, Israel is almost never mentioned
on his show. But though liberals and Democrats are the main targets of his
scorn, he reserves his greatest disdain for “neoconservatives” and others whom
he believes have duped America into fighting “forever wars” in the Mideast
instead of taking care of the needs of those at home. He seems particularly
angry at Republicans who have become beloved by the pro-Israel community like
former U.S. Ambassador the United Nations Nikki Haley.
Carlson is right that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
been costly failures. But, like Beinart, he goes further and now claims that
Syria and its ally Iran aren’t worth bothering about.
These Iran apologists may start out from different points
and have different end goals. But both have little use for the alliance with
Israel and bend over backwards to dismiss concerns that Iran, and its Islamist
and authoritarian allies, are threats to America’s interests and values.
Many of those accusing Carlson of anti-Israelism and
antisemitism, both now and in the past, have pointed to ADL CEO and National
Director Jonathan Greenblatt’s call—to the World Federation of Advertisers—to boycott
Fox, pointing to Carlson’s “open endorsement of the Great Replacement
Theory.”:
Before I pause for Q&A, let me share with you another
vivid example of how hate speech and white supremacy is moving from the margins
into the mainstream.
Just two weeks ago on his Fox News program, Tucker Carlson
openly endorsed the white supremacist “Great Replacement Theory.” If you haven’t heard of it, this
is a virulently racist and antisemitic conspiracy theory that holds a secret
group of Jewish people are plotting to flood the United States with non-whites
and immigrants in order to commit “white genocide.”
Lots of us see the ADL and Greenblatt as irredeemably radical
left, among them, this writer. We tend to discredit anything Greenblatt says or
does. Some, in fact, point to Greenblatt’s decrial of the former Fox employee
as proof that Tucker Carlson is innocent of these accusations and is neither a
conspiracy theorist nor an
antisemite. But even Greenblatt and the ADL sometimes get it right—just as a
broken clock is right, twice a day.
On Monday, [Tucker Carlson] delivered a 20-minute defense of his “replacement”
idea. At the end he took aim at the ADL, saying its defense of Israel’s Jewish
majority and opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees contradicts its
advocacy for immigrants in the United States.
“In the words of the ADL, why would a government subvert its
own sovereign existence?” he wondered, referring to an essay on the ADL’s
website. “Good question. Maybe ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt will join
‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ some time to explain and tell us whether that same
principle applies to the United States.”
Perhaps this sounded simply like Carlson going after a group
that has been challenging him.
But for far-right extremists, his question went beyond a
debate about immigration policy. Carlson was alluding to a meme that has
traversed white supremacist circles for years and is a direct corollary to the
“replacement” theory: Jews want to replace white people in the United States
through mass immigration, the theory goes, but in Israel they protect their own
race by restricting immigration.
White supremacists often refer to this idea by calling for
“Open borders for Israel” — trollishly suggesting that American Jews should
support similar immigration policy for the US as they do for Israel.
“Open borders for Israel” was a rallying cry at the 2017
rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where far-right marchers chanted “Jews will
not replace us.” A Facebook group called Open Borders for Israel features Pepe
the Frog, a cartoon appropriated by the “alt-right.” An “Open Borders for
Israel” face mask featuring an anti-Semitic caricature is available for
purchase on at least one website, and a white supremacist group distributed
flyers with the slogan at Texas Christian University last year, according to
TCU360, a campus news website.
The contradiction only works in white supremacists’
imaginations. In reality, while American Jews tend to sympathize with
immigrants and refugees, few Jews actually call for “open borders” in the US
And many Jews and Jewish groups, including the ADL, are particularly critical
of Israel’s restrictive refugee policy, which has been a topic of heated debate
there for a decade.
In the “open borders for Israel” meme, white supremacists
take substantive debate beyond the pale of legitimacy. Beyond critiquing
policy, they suggest (falsely) that Israel’s immigration system is one more
piece of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy white society, and that Jews are
playing a dishonest double game by advocating separate policies for the United
States and Israel.
Responding to Carlson’s salvo, directed at Greenblatt and
the ADL, CAMERA Senior Research Analyst Gilead Ini tweeted:
Tucker is wrong because the ADL opposing a "right of
return" is about preserving a single, functioning refuge for an oppressed
people, slaughtered in the millions *as Jews,* expelled from their countries
*as Jews,* whose population today is still below pre-Shoah numbers.
Surely Tucker understands the difference between what's
described above and the situation of, say, Americans of English descent. But he
doesn't care. He's about dulling rather than sharpening viewers understanding,
for the sake of scoring his point.
1/ Tucker is wrong because the ADL opposing a "right of return" is about preserving a single, functioning refuge for an oppressed people, slaughtered in the millions *as Jews,* expelled from their countries *as Jews,* whose population today is still below pre-Shoah numbers. https://t.co/pNK9M9Mcw8
Ini isn’t shy here. He says it very clearly: Tucker “understands
the difference” between Israel’s “right of return” and the Biden
Administration’s “open borders” policy in the United States. Carlson is
being cagey and misleading here, suggesting to his viewers that when Jews make Aliyah
to their indigenous territory, it is exactly the same as illegal immigrants
flooding the border in Texas.
There is more than a hint of antisemitism here, but only if
you’re willing to let go of loyalty to Tucker for the sake of loyalty to Israel
and the Jewish people. Tucker knows better—knows exactly what he is doing when
he says these things about Israel. The now-terminated Fox News employee is too
smart not to understand the import of his own words, and the theory that some
conclude lies behind these words. In other words, those who so “reasonably”
deduce that Tucker was pointing only to what he sees as the double standard of
the ADL, and not really suggesting that Jews have no right to immigrate to the
Jewish State, delude themselves. Otherwise, he would not leave the matter
fuzzy, unclarified, and open to interpretation.
Where do we draw the line in our understanding of Tucker’s equivocal
rant? Did his words mean nothing more than a pointed rebuke of the liberal,
two-faced ADL? Or was he couching his words to avoid outing himself as someone
who, at the very least, thinks that Jews demand special treatment. At worst,
Tucker may be, as Greenblatt asserts—though I am loathe to give the ADL credence
or legitimacy in these matters—a firm believer in the Great Replacement Theory.
In January of this year, Tucker insulted Ahinoam Nini, a
singer of international renown, known simply as “Noa,” no last name, outside of
Israel—her real name is probably too difficult for most non-Hebrew speakers to pronounce.
Nini is rabidly far-left, and her political views are anathema to Israelis on
the right. Under the cover of Nini’s leftwing politics, Tucker gave himself
permission to mock her singing and hand gestures. Then Carlson went further,
drawing attention to the fact that Noa is Jewish: “Yeah, and those people run
the world? They are so impressive!”
Was Tucker making fun of the Great Replacement Theory,
leftists, the singer herself, or the Jewish people? All of the above? Who
knows? Only those of us who have come to believe that where there’s antisemitic
smoke, there’s antisemitic fire, will interpret these words as yet more
evidence that Tucker Carlson is, indeed, an antisemite.
On October 6, 2022, Tucker Carlson hosted Kanye (Ye) West on
his show. Not long after, Kanye took to Twitter, in his now famous antisemitic
rant. You know—the one where he said, “I’m a bit sleepy now, but when I wake
up, I’m going death
con 3 on the JEWISH PEOPLE.”
The indefatigable Jonathan Tobin once more documented the evidence
of and the slippery nature of Tucker
Carlson’s probable antisemitism six days later, when he drew a line between
the Ye’s appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, and the “death con 3” tweet:
Carlson became something of a tribune for conservatives for
his forthright condemnations of the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020 and
willingness to speak out on other issues dear to the hearts of those on the
political right. That made him a target for the left, with groups like the
Anti-Defamation League seeking to de-platform him for his discussions of
so-called “replacement theory” about immigration. This said more
about the ADL’s partisanship than Carlson, since the idea that demographic
change will alter American politics is one that originated with and continues
to be advocated for by Democrats.
Here again, the fact that liberal groups have already “cried
wolf’” about Carlson makes it easier for him to dismiss criticisms when he
actually does something to mainstream hatred. This is what happened in the wake
of the West interview.
Carlson embraced West because some of what he says is in
line with conservative views about race-baiting (his endorsement of a “White
Lives Matter” shirt) and opposition to abortion. On the program, the
rapper/fashion mogul was allowed to claim that Jared Kushner pursued the
Abraham Accords for financial profit rather than to advance peace.
Carlson is unique among leading conservative media figures
in that he is not a supporter of Israel. He is careful, however, to stay away
from discussions about the Jewish state, lest he run afoul of mainstream
conservative opinion, which is overwhelmingly Zionist.
The word “Israel,” thus, is a word almost never heard from
8-9 p.m. on Fox News. And it is not surprising that Carlson would allow
one of the Trump administration’s greatest triumphs to be denigrated in this
particular manner.
While Carlson trumpeted the interview as proof that West was
not, as many claim, a disturbed individual or a hatemonger, what was left out
of the broadcast was as interesting as what was left in. In outtakes that
have subsequently been published, West made numerous allusions to hateful
Jewish stereotypes.
He even echoed assertions of the Black Israelite sect that
African-Americans were the real Jews—effectually denying the existence of a
Jewish people. That Carlson would leave this out of his show demonstrates that
he was attempting to hide West’s anti-Semitism.
Days later, West dropped the veil. In a series of tweets, he
announced that he was going to “def con 3 against the Jewish people.” Yet
conservative talk-show host Candace Owens defended him, in essence instructing
Jews on what does or does not constitute anti-Semitism.
Like liberals circling the wagons around left-wing haters of
Israel and the Jews, Carlson and Owens are doing the same for West and for the
same reason. In each case, legitimizing anti-Semitism is considered justified
if it defends a political ally, regardless of the consequences.
Though Carlson censored the interview with Ye, editing out
all West’s antisemitic crazy talk, Tucker ended the show by, according to Vice:
“declaring that the artist—whose erratic behavior has for years been at the
center of discussions about mental health and how Black men with mental health
issues are treated— is ‘not crazy’ and ‘worth listening to.’ He also added,
approvingly, that Ye was ‘getting bolder’ in what he has to say.”
Listen to Kanye here: "the thing about it being Adidas I can say antisemitic things and Adidas can't drop me ... now what ... now what ..." @adidaspic.twitter.com/Qu5LcZnmJj
Was Ye emboldened by the interview with Tucker? Did the fact
that Tucker hid Ye’s hateful ravings from the public, encourage the bipolar
rapper that Carlson actually approved of these antisemitic sentiments?
Why did Tucker tell his audience that Ye is “not crazy,” “worth listening to”
and “getting bolder in what he has to say” if not to show admiration and approval for Ye’s
virulent dislike of the Jewish people?
The mask is slipping and some of us already see Tucker Carlson for what he is: a covert antisemite. Maybe it's time for Tucker to come out of the closet and put all doubt to rest. Unless, of course, he's afraid to be canceled—a process Fox News appears to have already begun.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Yet contrary to the film’s conclusion, the Holocaust tells us little or nothing about what to do about America’s contemporary immigration debates or the current American problem with Jew-hatred. Any attempt to frame the Holocaust as a representative moment in the history of human intolerance is a moral calamity. Burns demonstrated this in a CNN interview to promote the film. He spoke of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to ship illegal immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard—whose affluent liberal residents advocate open borders but prefer to have border communities deal with the humanitarian crisis this has engendered—as if it deserved to be mentioned in the same conversation as the subject of his documentary.
That Burns, a longtime supporter of the Democrats and liberal causes, would be guilty of playing along with such an inappropriate Holocaust analogy demonstrates that the filmmaker’s efforts to frame the question of American guilt in this context should be viewed with suspicion. The same is true of his attempt to claim that current political opponents of open borders—such as Trump, DeSantis, and their supporters—are figures who conjure up the threats that America and the Jews faced in the past.
Anti-Semitism isn’t merely a collection of hateful sentiments; it’s a political organizing principle that has attached itself to a variety of different ideologies, from Nazism to Communism to Islamism. The answer to such threats isn’t open borders for America, amnesty for illegal immigrants, or even ensuring that more people read The Diary of Anne Frank. The only way to deter another genocide of the Jews is Jewish empowerment and our ability to defend ourselves, something we would gain only after the war with the creation of the State of Israel.
Some who attempt to use the Holocaust as an exhibit in contemporary immigration-law debates are actually indifferent to the security of Israel and, indeed, support appeasement of an Iran that seeks nuclear weapons to possibly perpetrate another Holocaust. This makes it hard to take them seriously when they lecture Americans about the murder of 6 million Jews in the past century.
The Holocaust was a chapter of history marked by American failure. But whatever one may think about Franklin Roosevelt and his indifference to Hitler’s victims, the responsibility for the murder of 6 million Jews still belongs to the Nazis and their collaborators. It was a crime the United States may not have had the power to deter, but one this nation could have done more to stop had its political leadership been willing to do so. This is a disturbing fact for many who lionize Roosevelt. But Burns and others who clearly wish to apply the lessons from this failure to complicated 21st-century political debates, while ignoring real-time genocides or potent threats to the security of millions of living Jews, shouldn’t pretend they have learned anything from the past or have anything to teach us about it.
At what point does a rise in anti-Semitism stop being viewed merely as a series of isolated, troubling occurrences and start being treated like an emergency? When mass- media programs mainstream hatemongers who target and seek to delegitimize Jews? When elite academic institutions behave as though it’s acceptable conduct? When Jews are attacked in the streets?
The ongoing epidemic of violence against Jews in New York City is mostly ignored, both by the media and much of the organized Jewish world. This is not only because the victims are Orthodox Jews who are easy to pick out. They’re also not the sort of people with whom opinion leaders, and even most American Jews, identify or associate.
But the mainstreaming of anti-Semitic attitudes on major campuses around the United States is harder to dismiss. Even more difficult to ignore are the widely disseminated programs that embrace open anti-Semites as legitimate voices worth considering.
Indeed, what is unfolding, inch by inch, is the normalization of anti-Semitism in the U.S. in a manner unprecedented in the post-Holocaust era. Nor is it confined to a specific segment of society or particular end of the political spectrum.
Indeed, as the events of the past week illustrate, Jew-hatred is thriving on both the left and the right. Individually, each of these instances—the legitimization of the BDS movement and targeting of Jewish institutions at Boston’s Wellesley College; the establishment of a Jew-free zone by student organizations at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law; the appearance of BDS advocate Roger Waters on the Joe Rogan podcast; and the featuring of the rapper formerly known as Kanye West on the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight”—can be unpacked, denounced or rationalized and then forgotten, before the public’s attention is diverted to new controversies.
Taken together, they represent a trend that ought to set off alarms about the way insidious ideas that normalize hatred for Jews and Israel are gaining a foothold in mainstream forums. More than that, the growing tolerance for them and lack of consequences for those responsible bode ill not just for Jews, but for the future of civil society.
Roger Waters, British rock musician and founding member of band Pink Floyd has expressed his strong opinions about the relationship between Israel and Hamas in a recent appearance on commentator Joe Rogan's popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience.
"The Israelis seem now to have a policy of ... murdering so many of them that they are absolutely trying to create another intifada. So they can make it an armed conflict...so they can just kill them all," he said, adding that Israel is provoking the Palestinians into an armed conflict in order to manufacture an excuse to destroy them.
Waters started out his statements by reminding Rogan that Hamas is actually "the democratically elected government of Gaza." He quickly added that "there is an armed wing and whatever..." and then began speaking about occupation and the Geneva convention.
Rogan pressed him, asking whether or not the elections in Gaza were corrupt. Waters responded saying, "I have no idea, I wasn't there...Has there been an election since then? I don't know. ...I can't really answer that question because I'm not there and I don't know."
Touching on the subject of rockets fired into Israel, Waters asserted that rockets fired from Gaza "almost never do any damage because they're very ineffectual."
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Lurking Doubts Behind October 6-7, 2023
-
What is driving right-wingers about the accusations that the debacle of
October 7, 2023 was solely due to Binyamin Netanyahu? Why do they promote a
consp...
Good News, Bad News
-
Shabbat Shalom!
This was a Dry Bones cartoon from 2018. It is still true today. Even though
Israel has sealed or blown up much of the system, a lot rem...
Elder of Ziyon
-
Love of Israel is in no way contradictory to love of America. American Jews
are very appreciative to live in a country that is not only welcoming of
Jews b...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Sunday, September 06, 2026
Buy 
