We were fans of Tucker’s during the communist revolution of 2020. He was the only big microphone to give a platform to counter-narrative voices such as Dr. Peter McCullough, Alex Berenson and many others who stood against the Western-World-Wide totalitarian mandates for experimental gene therapy shots. So maybe it’s a little extra painful to see him turn to the dark side since he went indie.
He has had a lot of guests that promote antisemitism in any number of ways. One was some guy who claimed that Churchill was the baddie and Hitler was just misunderstood. Can’t remember who it was, but even he said in a subsequent interview that Tucker’s introduction of him exaggerated his credentials. Another was a Jewish comedian who did a brilliantly funny routine dismantling Judaism as a belief system. But Tucker had him on as a guest for a very different reason. Having a Jewish comedian to rip on Judaism is essentially like Hamas using those fuzzy tire headed pseudo-Jews demand the end of Israel as a nation state.
In June Carlson had another ‘historian’ on who claimed the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate treated Christians better than contemporary Israel does now.
It was so transparently an attack on Jews and Israel that hopefully it undermined its own authority. But then some people still watch CBC so it’s amazing how many digestive enzymes people can contain for the excrement of male cattle.
The article at RAIR can be seen here.
The segment of the JD Hall interview is below:
Robert Spencer’s actual history of the location and period is below:
Ignoring the subject matter altogether, this post also contains an excellent example of the contrast between a claim and an argument. JD Hall makes claims with no substantiating argument. If you fact check it you will find out how accurate it is on your own. Robert on the other hand substantiates his claims with evidence. he makes each one an actual argument explaining context and Islamic law as well as historical proofs.
Please share with anyone you feel would benefit from this.
Too bad that Tucker won’t invite Robert Spencer to clear the air re Islam and his Hall interview. .
Tucker is a coward, and a stupid one at that. Nothing more to add.
“Anti-semitism” does not exist. It is a fake charge hurled at your target in order to get the target defending against the fake charge and not the point of contention in order to derail the argument.
Predicating a post with the foundational (paraphrased) position of ‘He’s an antisemite’ rug-pulls the entire post and delegitimizes it. Rather like calling someone a “racist” – which also does not exist (“racism” is in-group preference. Only Whites are not permitted in-group preference. Every other group on the planet is encouraged to have in-group preference). It is a brute force power move – a purity test – made to get the target to acquiesce.
Anyone using such a tactic is, by definition, not legitimate and is engaging in sophistry – arguing with the intent to deceive.
I can meet you at least half way there.
You are 100% correct that the term is used that way, and a lot, and unfortunately all to often by Jewish people as well, to win an argument or because its a handy rhetorical weapon. No question that is true.
But it doesn’t make antisemitism not exist.
I would say it was so minimal in the West prior to Islamification that it effectively was of little consequence, but it existed. Occasionally it had real consequences.
But with the left and Islam, antisemitism is actually systemic. its mandatory. The right who are ignorant of history think Hitler and the Nazis were right wing and join them in systemic antisemitism but that’s just another manifestation of leftist antisemitism.
Now, antisemitism is rampant. Attacks on Jews not personally known to the attackers are common. This is antisemitism as they are attacked for being Jewish, and attributes imputed on those individuals associated with being Jewish.
But yeah a certain amount of this issue was created by the abuse and overuse of the word as a weapon. That much is certain.
“anti-semite” “racist” “bigot” “anti-muslim” “jew-hater” blah blah – it’s all the same tactic with interchangeable terms and they all do not exist. It all goes to attacking and undermining in-group preference, which only Whites/Europeans are not permitted to have. All other groups on the planet are encouraged to have in-group preference. But not Europeans.
“Well ‘anti-semitism’ exists and overuse has taken the bullets out of the gun – made it ineffective and anyone who does use it suspect and not credible from the start.”
That this particular pejorative has become ineffective is not my problem. I will not bemoan a deceitful tactic losing it’s efficacy.
You say it does exist and by using it as your opening position you endorse that claim by default. Okay, then onus probandi. Prove it exists. Prove it exists beyond “muh Nazis” because if you include them then also by default you have to include the last 3000 years and every country that has expelled jews.
And even if you DO manage to prove it exists, you still have to prove that it is an immoral, undesirable position. You have to prove how any person putting their own group first and foremost to the exclusion of all others is somehow “bad” and how including jews (or any other group because this applies to all) in literally anything is a baseline “good”.
From my chair, for you to defend this means you are going to have to defend egalitarianism itself along with the metastasized cancer of multiculturalism and being some kind of rootless ‘world person’ bugman.
I’m not a National Socialist – what I am does not matter, though I did you the courtesy of telling you what I am not.
OK there is a LOT to unpack there and only so many hours in the day.
So I can’t give your comment the attention it deserves.
I think we are using the term very differently so that’s the first issue. Racism, antisemitism and so on exist but vary from person to person. And frankly, I have no problem with it existing. I have a problem with how people act on them.
The term itself has been destroyed via dialectics. In other words, both sides will apply the term to create an effect when the term either doesn’t apply, or applies so differently its logically inapropriate.
Secondly, you posit that my use of the term forces me to believe in equality, although I think you mean equity, or equality of outcome.
No. I do not. Equality is the opposite of equity and I do believe in equality of opportunity. But MERIT must be the determiner of outcome for too many reasons to list here.
If a person of greater merit, say an athlete is denied a position in his sport because of his race despite being the best qualified and available for the job, that is racism, all other things being equal of course.
Even having said that, there is a strong case to be made that in the private sector, people should be free to hire who they want for any reason they want. That is what a free society is. So long as that remains an equal right across the board. Which is it not at the moment.
Frankly your comment deserves a proper essay. Much of the issues have to do with decades of leftist reframing terms in dialectical reasoning which the rest of us have had to buy into.
Antisemitism certainly exists. Read Islamic scripture. It is systemically antisemitic and a core value of Islam. This is a fact. It is not an interpretation. Demographics in every Islamic country in the world, plus what it says in Islamic scripture, plus the legal interpretations of those scriptures in Tasfirs is court worthy evidence of the case.
But your assertion that antisemitism if it exists requires me to buy into leftist dialectics like equity, which you refer to as equalitarianism is false.
I believe in equality before the law, as that is a necessity for civilization. But also total freedom of speech and especially belief.
But where people land due to their own actions is their problem in a free society. And demographic differences between races are real and have causes, culturally and genetically. This is also a fact. How people use these facts is a separate discussion again.
I am not going to parse definitions or make an Appeal to Definition.
I think you are being sincere, and the very righteous anger and frustration I feel are not being directed towards you, personally – so do not take it personally.
Honestly, I do not care if the various pejorative “isms” that have been overused over the years are now to the point of being ineffective – again, that is not my problem. It is the problem of the shitbags who use such deceitful tactics to shut down vigorous debate or overtly manipulate people into acquiescing.
Renaming “antisemitism” to “jew hate” is just the same grift that’s been rebranded – and every grievance mongering scammy group of invader shitbags looking to leverage an advantage uses the same exact grift.
“That’s antisemitic/antiIslamic/bigoted/racist!!” Yeah? So? Honestly, I genuinely don’t give a shit anymore.
I don’t care if the Mohammedans engage in it. They do not belong in our civilization anyway, and I would thank them and every other invader group to leave now while the getting is good because deportation IS the moderate option at the moment and cannot be guaranteed into the future.
If you are going to do an essay on the ideological warfare memes launched at the West since Stalin and how the left has made this cancer mainstream, I suggest you start here – this was written about 20 years ago and while the author was off on his timeline and didn’t see the GWOT coming, his information is still valid: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260
The list:
– There is no truth, only competing agendas.
– All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
– There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
– The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
– Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
– The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
– For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
– When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.
I haven’t read the article at your link, but your list is a solid basic list of dialectic devices intended to destroy Western civilization from within.
It’s quite a good one actually.
This site makes a great deal of effort to point out those and many others as they are deployed against the West for the purpose of destroying our cultural immune system.
As for the first part, the more powerful the tool, the more value it has or damage it does depending on the user and intention.
Antisemitism at one point was a charge which had gravitas. So naturally, a lot of people, groups and organizations glommed on to it for their own reasons.
Often with the left, they create Win-Win scenarios for themselves by destroying a thing with a device, and win by its destruction, or win by the transformation of the target into their own manufacture.
For example, Star Wars, which was a cultural icon for middle white American males mostly, was made woke. Very woke. It did destroy the franchise. but it would have been just as good for the left if their making Star Wars all about non-standard sex and all the other imputed leftist devices had managed to influence that target demographic.
Win-win.
I would say the same for the abuse of the term antisemitism. It no longer carries weight, even when perhaps it should. It has been negated. And as you point out, subbing the terms, ‘Jew-hate’, an attempt to be more clear than antisemitism which Islamic groups tried to claim by their middle eastern heritage, was rapidly also negated.
Im not actually trying to change your mind about anything here. I’m ju7st trying to clarify the point of this site.
To try and warn the West about Islam, and explain communism and its actual core doctrine and methodology well enough that some tiny fraction of the population might wake up enough to defend first themselves, and then join in the defence of Civilization.
I don’t care who people like or dislike. I care about how they act on it. What a Muslim did to an older Jewish guy in Toronto was a crime.
It doesn’t NEED the extra layer of antisemitism. Judges historically always had the discretion to factor in motive to sentencing and that’s as it should be.
But assault, unprovoked assault etc. is a crime and in a proper republic would be punished roughly equally commensurate with the severity of the crime and not with the thinking behind it beyond a limited amount.
Canada has become a communist state where the intentions or thoughts matter more than the actions.
This is the point where are f**ked beyond all recognition.
So, in the grand scope of things, you’d be fine with, for example, red-haired people getting spit on; being singled out at work and at school with rules that don’t apply to others; and being told to lead a fund-raising effort on account of having red hair. It’s not the same because red hair is immutable? What about people whose grandmothers had red hair. Is it okay to spit on them?