Disclaimer: Like millions of others, I was a big fan of Tucker Carlson when he was at Fox News. I used to get home here in Jerusalem from morning prayers around 6:30, and the first thing I would do would be to look for a new monologue from the top conservative pundit. He could be biting, he could be funny, but he was also very insightful and committed. He held to his beliefs and did not care what others thought.
Most people have asked the question of what happened to Tucker during the past 18 months. He has interviewed screwballs and losers, and he rarely pushes back. His harsh treatment of Ted Cruz, an Israel supporter, versus his nonexistent cross-examination of Nick Fuentes and most of his other questionable guests has left people scratching their heads. The answer to the question was recently supplied by Carlson himself. When Megyn Kelly recently asked the former Fox star why he did not ask Fuentes about his mean comments about JD Vance’s wife, Carlson snapped back at his friend:
"Buzz off
You’re not my editor
I’ll give you his phone number. You can ask him."
And here we have the answer. Whether at MSNBC, Daily Caller or Fox, Tucker Carlson always had others on top of him with respect to content. If he wanted to interview a guy who had met 22 aliens in the past years, his bosses at Fox could tell him to stick to the budget debate. Carlson always had others making sure that his content and presentations fit with their audience's expectations. That is, until he was fired by Fox. On his own, Carlson has staff, but he is the boss. He can interview a nun with a mustache who claims that Israel is evil towards local Christians, while the latter say otherwise. He can bring on Fuentes, who described himself on the show as a “big fan” of Stalin and had previously called Hitler “cool”. He could interview the Tate brothers for hours and side with them on the legal issues, without once interviewing women who had worked with them or the legal authorities behind the indictments against them. Tucker hosted a “historian” who said that Churchill was the real bad guy in World War II, and that Hitler simply ran out of food and thus could not feed those poor Jews, who all died. I believe that we are seeing the real Tucker Carlson now, and that the version that we all watched and enjoyed on Fox was carefully controlled and kept in line.
Even in light of his recent “kooky” shows, I was somewhat shocked to see a short clip of Tucker Carlson lamenting the injuries caused by Israel’s famous beeper attack. He spoke of serious injuries and seemed truly saddened by the successful Mossad action. More recently, he came out against a Lutheran pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was accused of being involved in the plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler. He claimed that the act of trying to kill the Führer was anti-Christian. Bonhoeffer was arrested, imprisoned and hanged one month before the end of the war in Europe
Tucker Carlson uses his treatment of all killing as evil to chide the IDF and Jews, such as Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin. He claims that IDF leaders and Jews feel some type of moral superiority that gives them the right to kill others—something that he claims is repulsive. He has accused Israel of murdering Gaza youths and has stated that he wants no part of a relationship with a country that kills so many people.
What Carlson misses in his misdirected thinking is that sometimes one needs to kill. While the Torah clearly states “Thou Shall Not Kill”, the Talmud teaches that if someone is coming to kill you, get up and kill him first. Nobody other than Carlson, of whom I am aware in the West, attacked the beeper operation because they understood that Hezbollah is an international terrorist organization with a lot of American blood on its hands. Any action that weakens it and makes its fighters and leaders less capable is a win for the West. Charlie Kirk was a big fan of the vocal Nazi critic Bonhoeffer, who was accused of being in the July 20th attack on the Führer. Adolph Hitler plunged Europe into war and was responsible for tens of millions of civilian and military casualties. Any action that could have led to the demise of Hitler and the early end to the war would have been praised by Allied leaders. Why does Carlson not distinguish between killing innocents as Hamas did in southern Israel and killing evil people, as Israel has been doing on seven different fronts? Any functional moral system defines good and evil. When evil people harm others, killing them is generally good for society. Had Hitler been eliminated in 1939, millions of people killed from England to Russia might not have died.
The apparent reason why Carlson simply condemns all killing without any distinction between good and bad guys is that he ultimately wants to attack his political enemies, who are Israel and its supporters. If he took a standard Christian line that Israel is fighting for its existence and is thus permitted to kill terrorists, even if there is collateral damage, he could not engage in the anti-Israel and antisemitic attacks that he has undertaken during the past 18 months. Only Carlson could complain about Hezbollah members losing certain anatomical features. Most normal people remember the 241 Marines and CIA station chief that Hezbollah murdered and are elated that many of the group’s members lost eyes, fingers, and well, you know, during the event. He lamented the death of two children. But two dead children and dozens of dead terrorists with thousands more injured and requiring years of medical attention—never in history has there been such a successfully directed attack with near-zero civilian harm. But Carlson does not want to give Israel any compliments, so he ignores the thousands of legitimate targets and focuses on two children who were apparently killed when the beepers exploded. Did he feel the same way for the mostly Israeli civilians raped, tortured, burned and murdered on October 7, 2023?
Let’s do a thought experiment. Tucker Carlson is walking his dog while holding a hunting rifle. A fellow who looks exactly like Hitler walks towards him. When Carlson asks the stranger where he is going, he is quite clear: “I am going to the Carlson home,” as he waves his loaded Luger. What would Carlson do? He berated someone who tried to kill Hitler when the German leader had already caused the deaths of millions. So would Carlson shoot the attacker or simply say that all killing is evil and whatever happens happens? My guess is that he would shoot the fellow. All cases where Carlson has complained about killing have been for the benefit of Jews: getting rid of Hitler, the pagers, the IDF acting to protect Israelis by fighting in Gaza. That kind of killing is evil. But taking care of his own—I am certain that he would drop the guy on the spot.
If Tucker Carlson had 10 followers on X, he could be written off as one more crackpot. But he has millions of followers on his X channel, and his mainstreaming of a Nazi lover and making baseless claims against Israel and its American supporters will have an impact on some percentage of his followers. The formerly beloved Carlson has become the most prominent antisemite in America. What we are witnessing today is the real Tucker Carlson, formerly bottled up by his corporate overseers.