Why is Tucker Carlson so vicious?

[eTorro]

Hi.

After years of trying to figure out Tucker Carlson, all I can say is that he's run by pride and hatred.

I can't find any other reason for his inflammatory podcasts.

What are your thoughts on Tucker Carlson?

He doesn't seem to stop, and he's trying to isolate America from the world—at least that is what I get from watching his videos.

Any thoughts?

[Daniel Balan]

He is just a stage blue propagandist. Engaging seriously with such characters is already a mistake. Thinking Tucker is an intellectual honest actor is already a mistake. Tucker is just a right wing propagandist. He should be taken as such. There is nothing serious, or intellectually honest about him. His job is to spread hatred towards liberals, to push right wing naratives without any qualms or shame and to shape the minds of American citizens along the right wing conservative agenda. His life purpose is to destroy stage green.

[Hojo]

Cause he's Russian agent. He refuses to say anything negative about Russia.

[Joshe]

He's a con artist. A full-blown opportunist with no morals. Willing to claim he found Jesus because it helps his numbers.

He once stood on a stage in his high school and taunted all the teachers to come up and argue against him and that you could give him any topic, and he could beat any member of the staff in debate. Something like that. 

In other words, since he was young, he was obsessed with the ability to persuade and change people's perceptions of a thing. And the thing itself wasn't important, it was the power he liked. Basically, he had a knack for manipulation and he knew it and stepped all the way into it without a moral compass. 

He's not ideological the way that most people think. Ideology doesn't mean much to him. Basically, he's a wolf herding sheep. 

Edited yesterday at 03:00 AM by Joshe

[BlueOak]

 

Quote

He doesn't seem to stop, and he's trying to isolate America from the world—at least that is what I get from watching his videos.

Any thoughts?

Think of it more as a concentrated effort by Russia/China/BRICS to end democracy worldwide.

Isolation of America is a clear goal of that. 

That's the undeclared war we are in.

Edited yesterday at 07:38 AM by BlueOak

[zazen]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

 

Think of it more as a concentrated effort by Russia/China/BRICS to end democracy worldwide.

Isolation of America is a clear goal of that. 

That's the undeclared war we are in.

BRICS doesn't exist for the sole purpose of bringing down global democracy but as a reaction against a uni-polar imperial monopoly on global power.

The West has been anything but democratic at a geopolitical macro level, even if internally they are democracies - even failed ones, now failing even more. Those failures are more due to structural changes and internal pressures rather than some conspiracy by BRICS.

It's because of structural changes to the world order and the Wests position in it + our own system's internal contradictions reaching crisis point. Its a response to a changing order from a uni-polar one where the West reigns supreme to a multi-polar one they no longer do. The internal contradictions coming to a head are: decades of neoliberalism hollowing out the middle class, financialization concentrating wealth upward, de-industrialization destroying the working class, surveillance capitalism eroding privacy, corporate capture of democratic institutions, rising inequality, immigration and cultural change + economic anxiety = reactionary politics.

China, Russia or Iran didn't do any of that to us - our own elites and special interest class did - who sold their actions as being for the national interest when it was anything but. China and Russia opportunistically exploit those vulnerabilities but didn't create them. Multi-polarity isn't emerging because the West chose it but because they couldn't prevent it. So the order is changing and the Wests privileged position in it is ending - the economic pie is shrinking including our ability to capture new pies being grown elsewhere (China+developing world). Western societies are responding in various ways to compensate for that loss - right wing nationalism and authoritarian leaning is one of them.

BRICS is actually calling for being democratic between nations (on a global level) even if internally they aren't - multi-polarity where institutions reflect and represent everyone rather than having a uni-polar dictatorship run the planet.

[Joshe]

Pride + hatred is exactly right.

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

BRICS doesn't exist for the sole purpose of bringing down global democracy but as a reaction against a uni-polar imperial monopoly on global power.

Yes, its just a necessity for their ideology to become the new monopoly.

I refuse to engage you here on the flaws of replacing imperialist ambition with genocidal, fanatic, and brutally aggressive regimes the world over. I'm taking a day off.

[Dabidoe]

Outrage and partisanship drive engagement and revenue.

I find his inappropriately timed demonic sounding mocking laughter skin crawling. He's not some beacon of truth and justice he's yet another asshole trying to get attention and high on his own supply.

If he were ideologically consistent (pro war -> anti war, pro Israel -> jews are baby killers controlling the world)  and entertained both sides of a debate with an open attitude "I agree to disagre and respect your point of view." he would not have the same cult-like following or ratings.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Dabidoe

[zazen]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Yes, its just a necessity for their ideology to become the new monopoly.

I refuse to engage you here on the flaws of replacing imperialist ambition with genocidal, fanatic, and brutally aggressive regimes the world over. I'm taking a day off.

They don’t even have the same political systems let alone ideaologies. India, Brazil and South Africa are democracies - 3/5 BRICS members or 60%.

The main thing their united around is the fact that the current system is rigged against their interests - that 15% of the world can dictate to 85% of the world via institutional leverage.

Your framing turns what is a structural correction and shift in power into an ideological crusade that justifies then resisting this shift in power by containing those rising in power.

Multi-polarity is the opposite of monopoly. 

Have a good weekend.

[Leo Gura]

Tucker has always been a clown since the first time I saw him on CNN back in 2001. And nothing has fundamentally changed.

[Schizophonia]

Mirror effect; everything you say about him is a projection; making a topic or writing on a topic to comment on someone is vicious.

When you are no longer the characteristics you project onto him, you will no longer have the will to comment on this character.

You will no longer want to make a topic or participate in a topic about him, or even more simply in fact you will no longer see him appear in your maya, or with the projection of other things onto him.

[Daniel Balan]

9 hours ago, zazen said:

BRICS doesn't exist for the sole purpose of bringing down global democracy but as a reaction against a uni-polar imperial monopoly on global power.

The West has been anything but democratic at a geopolitical macro level, even if internally they are democracies - even failed ones, now failing even more. Those failures are more due to structural changes and internal pressures rather than some conspiracy by BRICS.

It's because of structural changes to the world order and the Wests position in it + our own system's internal contradictions reaching crisis point. Its a response to a changing order from a uni-polar one where the West reigns supreme to a multi-polar one they no longer do. The internal contradictions coming to a head are: decades of neoliberalism hollowing out the middle class, financialization concentrating wealth upward, de-industrialization destroying the working class, surveillance capitalism eroding privacy, corporate capture of democratic institutions, rising inequality, immigration and cultural change + economic anxiety = reactionary politics.

China, Russia or Iran didn't do any of that to us - our own elites and special interest class did - who sold their actions as being for the national interest when it was anything but. China and Russia opportunistically exploit those vulnerabilities but didn't create them. Multi-polarity isn't emerging because the West chose it but because they couldn't prevent it. So the order is changing and the Wests privileged position in it is ending - the economic pie is shrinking including our ability to capture new pies being grown elsewhere (China+developing world). Western societies are responding in various ways to compensate for that loss - right wing nationalism and authoritarian leaning is one of them.

BRICS is actually calling for being democratic between nations (on a global level) even if internally they aren't - multi-polarity where institutions reflect and represent everyone rather than having a uni-polar dictatorship run the planet.

I think that @BlueOak is right. China and Russia are doing their damnest to end democracies in the west. Otherwise how do you explain the mammoth amount of right wing propaganda that sprout out of the blue in late 2020? How come in African countries there isn't this utter madness right wing propaganda displayed non stop as it is the case when it comes to westerners phones? Why it isn't the case for countries in South America that have much worse economies than countries in Europe or The USA? Here in Europe we are living in the most spoiled conditions on earth, yet far right extremist movements are off the charts, how come? Why it isn't a similar strength left wing progressive movement? After all only progressive policies can help revigorate the middle class. Right wing populism will only deepen those inequalities as the newly made oligarcs will exploit the masses like never before.

[Cubbage]

Weird hearing these two talk about DMT entities through their warped perspectives

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DP4qE3TDhFM/?igsh=Zmg2cmg2b2t2cnV6

[Breakingthewall]

13 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

think that @BlueOak is right. China and Russia are doing their damnest to end democracies in the west.

China and Russia only seek to avoid being abused by the West. They are forced into defensive actions to avoid being stepped on. China doesn't care whether there is democracy in the West or not. It doesn't want the West to fall or to be superior to it. It wants to enrich itself and advance.

China doesn't compete with the US because, for China, the US is simply a tool, a client, something to use. It prefers a rich and stable US with which to do business and a stable world in which to prosper. China only cares about China, which is already quite a lot. The outside world is a place to make a profit, nothing more.

 

[Daniel Balan]

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

China and Russia only seek to avoid being abused by the West. They are forced into defensive actions to avoid being stepped on. China doesn't care whether there is democracy in the West or not. It doesn't want the West to fall or to be superior to it. It wants to enrich itself and advance.

China doesn't compete with the US because, for China, the US is simply a tool, a client, something to use. It prefers a rich and stable US with which to do business and a stable world in which to prosper. China only cares about China, which is already quite a lot. The outside world is a place to make a profit, nothing more.

 

You fail to appreciate how much hatred dictatorships have towards liberal democracies. That's the whole reason for the Ukraine war. It wasn't the bullshit the Russian stooges tell you, it wasn't about NATO enlargement and security threats. It was all about Ukraine not becoming a liberal democracy. If the people of Russia saw that Ukraine becomes successful and prosperous while being a liberal democracy, the Russians would have demanded the same type of governance framework at home, thus this meant the entire mafia state that is currently enslaving the Russian masses with an iron fist would have lost the ability to rule supremely over the slaves. In a way this is your American civil war, Ukraine is the union that wants to abolish the notion that the whole population must be at the whims of the oligarcs and Russia is the confederacy that is willing to sacrifice everything in order to keep exploiting the masses without any regulation.

A liberal democracy nullifies the ability to transform your citizenry into cattle that you abuse and milk dry of every ounce of workforce. That's precisely what Russia and China are doing to their citizens and thus, they want to make sure that no liberal democracy can ever influence the way they are currently doing their exploiting of the masses.

Edited 2 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[zazen]

14 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

I think that @BlueOak is right. China and Russia are doing their damnest to end democracies in the west. Otherwise how do you explain the mammoth amount of right wing propaganda that sprout out of the blue in late 2020? How come in African countries there isn't this utter madness right wing propaganda displayed non stop as it is the case when it comes to westerners phones? Why it isn't the case for countries in South America that have much worse economies than countries in Europe or The USA? Here in Europe we are living in the most spoiled conditions on earth, yet far right extremist movements are off the charts, how come? Why it isn't a similar strength left wing progressive movement? After all only progressive policies can help revigorate the middle class. Right wing populism will only deepen those inequalities as the newly made oligarcs will exploit the masses like never before.

International relations run on interests not ideaology. What difference does the West being authoritarian or democratic make to Russia / China? You can have rivals in both systems. A authoritarian America could still view Russia / China as rivals to be “contained”. In fact a democratic system allows for easier interference than a centralized authoritarian one. Somehow we’re supposed to believe Russia and China want other authoritarians to fight against.

I have a thesis in progress about all this that has multiple levels to it. Basically populism is a reflex to economic (dispossession or disenfranchisement), cultural (displacement), and structural (geopolitical) pressures.

Populism can manifest in different ways (left vs right) and swing between the two (Brazil as a perfect case - Bolsonaro to Lula) or barely show up if those pressures don’t cause the conditions for it emerge (Japan for example).

Why has Japan been immune from populist fever? Because economic, cultural and structural pressures haven’t been enough to break it - only bend it. It’s coasting off strong economic growth from the past, culturally still cohesive, and is adapting to structural geopolitical shifts rather than resisting the shift or being confrontational towards those driving it. 

Japan sits right beside the epicenter of the global power transition (China) while remaining a core ally of the Western US led order. It isn’t viewed as a threat by either side as it’s aligned with the West while economically plugged in and diplomatic with China. That gives Japan insulation from potential instability that comes when the global order is shifting (unipolar to multipolar). Instead of being a proxy of great power competition its adapted and struck a strategic balance among that completion.

 

Pakistan as an example is doing similar by balancing relations between the two superpowers. Ukraine could have played the same neutral role between competing orders and powers but instead became a frontline proxy.

I put a larger essay of this into Chat GPT to tidy up. Here it is:

“

That’s an excellent and comprehensive take — conceptually rich and already 90% there. What it really needs is tightening and rhythmic flow — less redundancy, smoother transitions, and sharper contrasts so that the reader feels the argument unfold naturally from micro (economic) to macro (geopolitical). Here’s a refined version with your substance fully intact:

“Populism in a Changing World Order

**Populism is not an ideology — it’s a reflex.

It arises when economic, cultural, and structural pressures converge to make ordinary people feel the system no longer works for them.

It is the political pulse of instability — a symptom of imbalance between promise and reality.

 

These pressures exist on three levels:

Economic: dispossession or disenfranchisement — losing prosperity or being denied it.

Cultural: identity loss or challenge — a sense of “who we are” coming undone.

Structural / Geopolitical: the macro order that either cushions or intensifies these pressures.

When these align, populism activates.

 

**Western Populism — The Politics of Dispossession

Western populism is nostalgic. It looks backward to a lost dream — the “American” or “Western” dream of prosperity, security, and belonging.

It’s driven by dispossession: what was once possessed has been lost.

Hence its central demand: “Take back power.”

The postwar order delivered stability at home through dominance abroad.

Now, as the global hierarchy erodes, that privilege is slipping away — economically and culturally.

Deindustrialization, liberal progressivism, and mass migration amplify the feeling of loss and cultural dislocation.

 

Western populism therefore becomes both economic and existential — a fight over what we lost and who we are.

Emotion: Dispossession

Goal: Restore a lost order

Tone: Defensive, nationalist, identity-driven

Direction: Scapegoats horizontally — migrants, minorities, cultural outsiders

Example: Trump, Brexit, Le Pen

When identity and prosperity collapse together, populism turns inward — protectionist, nostalgic, and sometimes exclusionary.

 

**Southern Populism — The Politics of Disenfranchisement

Southern populism is aspirational. It looks forward to a future that has long been denied.

It’s driven by disenfranchisement: people never had access to prosperity or power, only exploitation and dependency.

Its central demand: “Claim power.”

These movements seek not restoration but realization — to achieve the prosperity others already enjoyed.

They target systems of corruption, colonial legacies, and foreign domination rather than cultural outsiders.

Emotion: Disenfranchisement

Goal: Attain fairness and sovereignty

Tone: Assertive, redistributive, anti-imperial

Direction: Diagnoses vertically — corrupt elites, imperial powers, foreign corporations

Example: Chávez, Morales, AMLO, Malema

Some, like Hindu nationalism, reach back to ancient “golden eras” for symbolic pride, but most are anchored in recent injustice, not past glory.

Their populism is structural — not nostalgic — aimed at rewriting the hierarchy rather than reasserting it.

 

**Cultural Divergence

Culture shapes how populism expresses itself.

The West’s rapid liberal-progressive shifts, mass migration, and multiculturalism eroded cultural consensus.

People no longer share a stable “we.”

Hence, Western populism is often right-wing — a defensive reaction to cultural displacement layered atop economic loss.

The Global South, by contrast, retains stronger civilizational cohesion.

Progressivism hasn’t yet atomized its societies; migration hasn’t unsettled its sense of self.

Tribalism exists, but within clearer cultural boundaries.

So its populism focuses less on who belongs and more on who benefits.

The West’s populism fights over identity.

The South’s populism fights over opportunity.

As a rule: the West’s populism is right-leaning and nostalgic; the South’s is left-leaning and emancipatory.

 

**Scapegoats vs. Diagnosis

Western populism looks sideways for culprits — blaming cultural outsiders for decline.

Southern populism looks upward — diagnosing elites, imperial systems, and structural exploitation.

The West’s populism has scapegoats; the South’s populism has diagnosis.

One externalizes guilt; the other identifies cause.

Even within the West, however, there’s a growing awareness of elite capture — “globalists” whose interests are transnational rather than national — showing that both types can overlap under shared pressures.

 

The Structural Context: Empire and Decline

Beneath both lies a shifting global architecture.

The economic and cultural stresses of populism play out within a collapsing geopolitical framework.

 

The prosperity and peace of the Western middle class were imperially subsidized — stability at home built on disorder abroad.

Wars, coups, regime changes, and debt traps sustained Western dominance, enriching corporate elites while pacifying domestic politics.

The U.S.-led order’s reserve currency, global institutions, and financial system created an artificial calm that kept populism dormant.

 

Now those conditions are unraveling.

The imperial core has hollowed itself out — late-stage capitalism cannibalizing its own foundations.

Meanwhile, the periphery that once fed the empire is rising and resisting.

A unipolar order is giving way to a multipolar one.

Western elites, who outgrew their national bases to become global capital, now face shrinking access to cheap labour, easy markets, and political obedience.

Their response is to extract inward — cannibalizing the very societies that once benefited from empire.

 

**In Essence

Populism is a mirror of collapse.

In the West, it mourns dispossession — the loss of a dream that once was.

In the South, it demands justice — the right to a dream never realized.

Both are reactions to the same historical transition: the decline of an empire that once kept order by exporting chaos.

As the world shifts from unipolarity to multipolarity, the periphery rises, the core fractures, and populism is the sound of that tectonic adjustment reverberating through humanity.“

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

You fail to appreciate how much hatred dictatorships have towards liberal democracies.

Perhaps dictatorships like Iran or Cuba, but I'd say China views liberal democracies with a sense of perplexity and surprise. For them, what matters is what works: straight lines and useful systems. They can't afford all the moral debate, the struggles between charismas, the emotional ideologies.

They are 1.4 billion people who, not long ago, didn't have shoes, and who work like machines driven by millennia of Confucian tradition. They don't hate the US; they see it as an interesting and fun psychotic alien with brilliant ideas to exploit.

[Kid A]

 

On 25.10.2025 at 2:11 PM, zazen said:

BRICS doesn't exist for the sole purpose of bringing down global democracy but as a reaction against a uni-polar imperial monopoly on global power.

The West has been anything but democratic at a geopolitical macro level, even if internally they are democracies - even failed ones, now failing even more. Those failures are more due to structural changes and internal pressures rather than some conspiracy by BRICS.

It's because of structural changes to the world order and the Wests position in it + our own system's internal contradictions reaching crisis point. Its a response to a changing order from a uni-polar one where the West reigns supreme to a multi-polar one they no longer do. The internal contradictions coming to a head are: decades of neoliberalism hollowing out the middle class, financialization concentrating wealth upward, de-industrialization destroying the working class, surveillance capitalism eroding privacy, corporate capture of democratic institutions, rising inequality, immigration and cultural change + economic anxiety = reactionary politics.

China, Russia or Iran didn't do any of that to us - our own elites and special interest class did - who sold their actions as being for the national interest when it was anything but. China and Russia opportunistically exploit those vulnerabilities but didn't create them. Multi-polarity isn't emerging because the West chose it but because they couldn't prevent it. So the order is changing and the Wests privileged position in it is ending - the economic pie is shrinking including our ability to capture new pies being grown elsewhere (China+developing world). Western societies are responding in various ways to compensate for that loss - right wing nationalism and authoritarian leaning is one of them.

BRICS is actually calling for being democratic between nations (on a global level) even if internally they aren't - multi-polarity where institutions reflect and represent everyone rather than having a uni-polar dictatorship run the planet.

It is well-documented that Russia interfered in the American election in 2016 and has done the same with other Western elections through multiple troll factories to weaken Western democracies.

Mueller Report (2019) - Documents the Internet Research Agency (IRA) troll factory that created hundreds of fake accounts and bought $100,000 in Facebook ads seen by 4-5 million Americans in a campaign favoring Trump and disparaging Clinton ( https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline= ) 

Senate Intelligence Committee Report (2020) - Bipartisan 1,000-page report concluding Russia conducted an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, with the goal of undermining "public faith in the US democratic process" ( https://intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf ) 

European Parliament Report (2022) - Documents Russian interference in Brexit, French, and other EU elections, stating the objective is to "undermine confidence in the electoral system and therefore in the democratic process itself" ( https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2022-0022_EN.html) 

NPR's coverage of Senate findings on extensive Russian interference ( https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903616315/senate-releases-final-report-on-russias-interference-in-2016-election ) 

Carnegie Endowment analysis showing interference "geared towards undermining the effectiveness and cohesion of the Western alliance" ( https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/05/23/russian-election-interference-europe-s-counter-to-fake-news-and-cyber-attacks-pub-76435 )

Evidence of Voice of Europe troll network bribing European politicians ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_European_politics )

It's meaningless to claim that the West only has itself to blame when Russia is pouring gasoline on the fire to such a great extent as they actually do.