Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dismantle Tucker Carlson’s Patriot Purge documentary, exposing its shady framing—like Carlson’s selective memory on Iraq and the Patriot Act, Ali Alexander’s fraudulent permit claims for Stop the Steal (50 vs. thousands), and Darren Beattie’s anti-Semitic "MAGA blood libel" rhetoric. They mock Elijah Schaefer’s inconsistent "ordinary parents" narrative and J. Michael Waller’s debunked militia conspiracy theories, while rejecting Carlson’s provocative claims about FBI orchestration of January 6th and the Michigan kidnapping plot as baseless sensationalism. The episode reveals how Carlson’s Fox Nation platform weaponizes outrage to push fringe narratives, proving his "controlled opposition" tactics rely on deliberate misdirection rather than truth. [Automatically generated summary]
And also, sometimes the things they have to choose between doing, because when they get, for anyone who hasn't watched the show, when they get to a thing called a roadblock, they will have a choice of two different tasks.
They have to do one of them.
And, like, sometimes they're about as hard as each other, and sometimes one of them requires a Herculean effort.
No, every now and again, you'll see somebody, and they'll just have a couple of scenes, and then the third one, they're, like, six hours later, and you're like, Jesus fucking Christ!
As promised, we will be looking at the old Tucker Carlson documentary, Patriot Purge, that Alex Jones claims he did some background work on and probably is going to take credit for.
So, the first important thing that I want to point out, and I think is really important to understand about this series of documentaries, is that they're designed to be just as much of a marketing campaign as they are in exploration of the events of January 6th.
They were very specifically aired only on Fox Nation, Fox News' online streaming platform that requires a subscription to access.
The platform allows Fox to disseminate some of the more fucked up content it would like to air normally, but the kind of stuff that might attract a little bit too much heat if it was on broadcast television.
There's plenty more where that came from, but the point is that not only is Mark Furman a giant pile of shit as a person, his expertise as a cop is also worthless.
But Fox Nation has made eight seasons of a show where he's presented as a credible expert and the host.
Then, in February 2021, it was announced that Tucker Carlson had signed a deal to create Fox Nation exclusive content, including his chat show, Tucker Carlson Today, and his allegedly in-depth investigations called Tucker Carlson.
and originals.
Say what you want about this guy, but he is incredibly good at making sure his name is front and center on every project that he does.
Crossfire was really just about the bow tie, but now that he's a man, every project is Tucker Carlson.
I'm not getting out of bed unless the project's named Tucker Carlson something.
Tucker Carlson is the marketable franchise player that Fox has, so his face and his shows are really essential to attracting viewers to the Fox Nation platform, where they might also be drawn towards programs, like hearing Mark Furman's dumb takes, or, ooh, you could watch Geraldo's reboot of Cops.
Anyway, this is an important dynamic to understand when you begin approaching a topic like covering this documentary Patriot Purge.
At least some element of this presentation is meant to attract backlash, which will in turn increase subscriber counts for Fox Nation.
Sure, of course.
With that caveat out of the way, we can begin to touch on the meat of this show.
I've watched the series a few times, and the argument is this, as best as I can tell.
So I also need to clarify that the messaging of these three episodes is a little bit out of sync, and there's a couple of points where logic seems internally inconsistent.
Yeah, they're lying about and mischaracterizing the things that happened on January 6th in order to present white conservative Christians as terrorists because they want to use the national security apparatus and the Patriot Act against the right wing.
People have tried to denigrate Tucker by saying he's going full Infowars, but they may not know exactly how right they are.
This documentary is a slicker, but less yell-filled presentation of conspiracies that Alex has been pushing for like 20 years.
The real substantive difference that I can identify is that in Alex's version of the story, passing the Patriot Act was specifically for the reason of eventually using it against white people, whereas in Tucker's telling, it's kind of just a happy accident for the bad guys.
Alex loves Tucker and this documentary, but if I were Alex watching this, I'd be terrified and feeling about as obsolete as Woody in Toy Story 3. If I were him, I would also realize that it's 100% time to innovate.
As Hunter S. Thompson said, when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro, and there is no one weirder than Alex Jones.
If he wants to have any chance of retaining the mantle of the king of the fucked-up right-wing mountain, he's gonna have to take some kind of a big narrative risk, you know, because he's gotta start beating his own path through the woods.
The way I kind of look at this, and I feel like it may play out, is that right now, Alex and Tucker are in an uneasy tag team in the wrestling world.
They're a tag team of people who maybe haven't gotten along in the past or whatever, but they're really just a tag team until they inevitably break up and fight with each other.
As for me, I had a really difficult time trying to figure out how to cover this shit.
I think over the course of this, you'll see, like I said, so there's some real similarities that the presentation has to Alex's work, but also some really important differences.
It was my sincere intention to cover all three parts of the series, but I think you'll see why it would just be impossible without me throwing my laptop out the window.
I did watch the series in its entirety a few times, but today we're just talking about the first episode, which is densely packed with complete bullshit.
On our next episode, I'll try to cover a bit about how Alex has talked about the release of the documentaries, which is kind of like, I don't know, a less fun version of my Caravanity project.
I was trying to come up with a good pun for the name of the series, but all I could come up with is Dan's a Sucker for Tucker.
And an homage to the great 1999 album by Corrupt, The Streets is a Mother Tucker.
So I had the Corrupt album screech as a mother, Tucker.
So let's start off here at the beginning of the documentary where he's sort of laying out the theme, the premise, and playing a bunch of clips that are in support of his narrative.
So the argument that opens the first episode is almost staggering in its presentation.
So this is basically like an SAT kind of formulation where lying about weapons of mass destruction after 9-11 is to the Iraq war as blaming white supremacists for January 6th is to the coming purge of all white Christian conservatives from society.
So he directed Lauren Southern's latest movie called Crossfire.
This was, of course, the follow-up to her completely full of shit films, Farmlands and Borderless, so anyone who would work with her after that point automatically is suspect in my book.
Scooter was also the director of a film called Hoaxed.
You see, this was an attempt to make a documentary about how the media is all fake news, and they lie to claim that people like Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, James O 'Keefe, Gavin McGinnis, Lauren Southern, and Stefan Molyneux are liars.
They have to lie to make them look like liars.
And this is proven by interviews with Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, James O 'Keefe, Gavin McGinnis, Lauren Southern, and Stefan Molyneux.
The rest of the crew is mostly Tucker's team from Tucker Carlson Tonight and Fox producers, but this Scooter character being the only other credited writer on this project, it's a pretty interesting staffing decision, and by interesting, I mean transparent.
unidentified
Yeah, yeah, it doesn't get more obvious than that.
So, Tucker is talking about how they're trying to make you afraid of, like, the white army, the white terror army that's behind all of the stuff like this.
So I don't think anyone is saying that there's a white terror army.
That's just Tucker creating a ludicrous straw man to argue against, since he really doesn't have a leg to stand on against a real argument, which is there's a bunch of violent white supremacist and white nationalist groups, many of them who are either ideologically aligned with the, quote, Trump secretly won the 2020 election campaign, Or who recognize that that's a really fertile recruiting pool for them to try and exploit.
It's weird how Tucker is so upset about these corrupt people who got us into the Iraq War, considering that he supported and promoted it.
He's since rebranded as an anti-intervention-type populist, so he plays up this anti-war credibility, but it's nonsense for reasons that we'll get into later.
It's just super weird.
Like I said earlier, Tucker insists on calling out these corrupt elites from the Iraq War era, but he seems to forget what...
I am a born wealthy child with millions upon millions of dollars who supported the Iraq War, and you can't trust these wealthy elites who supported the Iraq War!
Also, that clip that's played of Biden at the end there is absolutely correct.
An analysis compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reviewed 893 incidents that met the definition of domestic terrorism in the United States that happened between January 1994 and May 8, 2020.
Their numbers showed that one, the vast majority of terrorist attacks and plots in the United States were committed by groups defined by a right-wing ideology, and two, In the six years leading up to 2020, the proportion of attacks carried out by right-wing groups has increased, with almost two-thirds of the attacks in 2019 being done by right-wing groups and over 90% in the period between January and May 8, 2020.
Right-wing groups were responsible for a greater percentage of terrorism than any other type of group for almost every year on the chart, with the exception of a few years in the early 2000s, where right-wing groups kind of went into a lull after 9-11, and left-wing groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front carried out targeted attacks against property.
Further, these researchers found that religiously motivated terrorism has killed the most people in that time period, but that's only because of 9-11.
However, if you look at the data more granularly, you'll find that right-wing terrorism is a way more consistent threat.
Quote, in 14 of the 21 years between 1994 and 2019 in which fatal terrorist attacks occurred, the majority of deaths resulted from right-wing attacks.
In eight of these years, right-wing attackers caused all of the fatalities, and in three more, including 2018 and 2019, they were responsible for more than 90% of annual fatalities.
So sure, it's absurd to try and pretend that there's a white terror army that poses a threat to us in the United States, but that's mostly because the right wing has some experience in the terrorism game.
And they have for decades followed the Louis Beam leaderless resistance model.
It's almost like because they've had so much cover from people like Tucker Carlson for a hundred years or so, they've figured out how to get away with all of this shit while still operating within a certain plausible deniability range.
January 6th is being used as a pretext to strip millions of Americans, disfavored Americans, of their core constitutional rights and to defame them as domestic terrorists.
But what exactly happened on January 6th?
How much of what we were told about that day is a lie?
Darren Beattie of Revolver News is one of the few in media who's done real reporting on what actually happened on January 6th.
So the first thing I want to point out, this is very, very important, is that Darren is way out of line referring to shoddy reporting that was later retracted and corrected with blood libel.
If you want to say that the media was eager to blame Officer Sicknick's death on the Trump supporters at the Capitol, be my guest.
But to use the term MAGA blood libel is a disgrace.
The blood libel is an insidious false accusation that's fueled generations of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and has led to countless deaths and untold suffering.
For Beattie to attempt to co-opt that term to exaggerate Trump supporters' oppression is completely unacceptable, especially considering that a large percentage of the people at the January 6th rally were QAnon followers who believe that the elites kidnapped children to torture them and drink their blood to get high on adrenochrome, which is basically nothing more than a modern-day version of the blood libel.
So Darren Beatty is the news editor for Revolver, a headline aggregator that's clearly looking to become the drudge report for the modern, unhinged right-wing news consumer.
Alex routinely grabs headlines from there to yell about, and it looks like Tucker's in the business of pushing this guy, too.
Beatty was formerly a Trump speechwriter, but get this, he lost that position in 2018 because he was too closely associated with white nationalists.
You know how much of a bigot you have to be to get thrown out of the Trump administration?
You see, Beatty had given a speech at the 2016 meeting of the H.L. Mencken Club, which is basically just a group of high-minded and intellectual racists and Nazis.
In a 2013 article in the Village Voice, SPLC researcher Mark Podak described them this way.
Quote, they're essentially advocating for a country which is either completely inhabited by whites or dominated by whites.
They are, in effect, a kinder, gentler clan.
To give you some idea of the ilk that hang out there, Richard Spencer was one of their board members.
So, Beatty got fired from the Trump administration for being too closely associated with explicitly racist folks, and then transitioned into being the racist media's new favorite link aggregator, and apparently, according to Tucker, one of the few journalists who's actually doing reporting on January 6th.
this is nonsense and to allow someone like Beatty to call something the MAGA blood libel without dealing with his very unsavory past that a sizable amount of Tucker's audience believes in actual blood libel is astonishingly bad stuff.
But I would really like to see Tucker or Beatty try to make a coherent argument that this reporting wasn't done in good faith with the information at the time.
When new information came to light, these outlets made corrections and retractions.
Even this documentary said they claimed that they were quietly retracting.
Yeah.
unidentified
I don't know how you qualify the volume So, they put it in their paper.
Officer Sicknick didn't die until January 7th, and most of the media that covered the story were relying on a press release put out by the United States Capitol Police Department.
From that press release, quote, Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6th, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters.
He returned to his division office and collapsed.
He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
The release goes on to say, quote, This press release would very strongly lead one to believe that Sicknick had suffered injuries in the line of duty at the Capitol and that he died upon returning to the office from said injuries.
They literally say in the press release that it's being investigated by the homicide branch, so it would be pretty reasonable to take from that that the Capitol Police Department were suspecting that this was a murder and that was the information they were releasing to the public at that time.
On January 8th, the New York Times reported that Sicknick had been hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.
This reporting was based on two anonymous sources within law enforcement, but by February 16th, the Times had done further examination and updated their article to reflect that this might not be accurate information that had been supplied to them by their sources.
They did that because they're a journalistic outlet.
All of this was done well before the DC Medical Examiner released Sicknick's cause of death, and we learned that he did die of natural causes after having a stroke.
By April, the Associated Press was widely reporting that even though there was initial chatter that he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher or hit with bear mace, there wasn't any evidence that any of it led to his death, and he died of natural causes.
People like Tucker and Beattie want to present a world where the mainstream media just makes up these stories out of thin air and then reports them to push their political agenda because that's what people like Alex and most of the right-wing media does.
However, the reality is much more complicated.
There'd been an outburst of violence at the Capitol where Sicknick was on duty.
He did die shortly after returning from that.
His brother has confirmed that Sicknick had told him that he was pepper-sprayed twice and that, quote, apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.
The Capitol Police put out a press release that he died of injuries that occurred on duty.
Two law enforcement sources had provided information that was later determined to be not good, but no one knew that at the time.
It's complex how these things work, and people like Tucker and Beatty want to simplify all that into these easily digestible narratives where the media wanted to make Trump supporters look bad, so they made up a conclusion about Officer Sicknick's death.
if they wanted to have a real conversation it would be about how the media particularly the twenty four hour news channels need to be a little more careful about how they engage with the news that they're reporting and how it might be wise to try and maintain a little bit of journalistic distance from the subjects that they're covering If that was the only complaint that these dudes were making, then I'd say that Beattie can still fuck himself for the blood libel thing, but that all the sections of the media have some room for improvement, so let's move forward.
So it's fair that the media outlets like the Times did retract their articles that included this information, but that's kind of what outlets do when they get things wrong.
The determination did come down that Sicknick did not die as a result of injuries suffered on January 6th, but that doesn't mean that Beatty was right that Sicknick wasn't attacked.
Sicknick told his brother that he was pepper-sprayed multiple times, passed out, and had to be resuscitated with CPR.
His experience may not have contributed to his death, but he was the subject of considerable violence that day.
So I don't know what point he's necessarily winning, other than just I was defiant and just disagreed with what people were saying, and I ended up randomly being right.
You can see here that the idea he's trying to push is that the coverage of the event is a MAGA blood libel because it was based solely on the idea that Sicknick had been killed.
But, like, you're bringing up, even that's bullshit.
When they play the clips of the broadcasters calling the mob murderous, that's kind of accurate.
The term murderous doesn't require that someone has committed murder, just that they're capable of it or seem to be intending to murder.
And I would say that a group of folks on January 6th...
They qualify for that.
Even if you just base it on the whole thing where they were chanting, hang Mike Pence.
His wife told reporters that he suffered from high blood pressure, and while I have no solid evidence to base this on...
The excitement and stress of the unfolding riot could have easily raised his heart rate and blood pressure, and the same could be said for another person who died, Benjamin Phillips.
Initially, it was believed that Roseanne Boyland was trampled to death by a bunch of people who were trying to storm the building.
Her friend who was there told reporters that was how she died because he was there and watched the trampling.
When the medical examiner's report came back, it turned out that she had actually died of, quote, accidental acute amphetamine intoxication.
Mm-hmm.
This was a very deadly mob.
And honestly, the only reason there weren't more deaths is probably dumb luck and coincidence.
Yeah, I mean, maybe the simplest thing that is so already infuriating about this is the idea that we are taking this all the way down to individual actors at January 6th as opposed to the people that set up all of the circumstances necessary that brought all of those people there.
So the media didn't need Sicknick's death to call the events of January 6th deadly.
That's a false premise that's being put forward by Darren Beatty and Tucker in order to help them brand that reporting in a way that's deeply offensive and anti-Semitic, but probably really popular with folks he hangs out with at the H.L. Mencken Club.
So there's this idea that they're kind of floating that is that Sicknick's death and the reporting around it and the branding of everybody as murderous, deadly, bloody people...
That's the whole reason that people were taking the events of the 6th seriously and people were getting arrested.
So this is a really smart game that Tucker is playing here.
He can very easily demonstrate that there was inaccurate early reporting about Officer Sicknick's cause of death, so that needs to be as big a deal as possible and explanatory for everything that he can possibly make it explanatory for.
That's why the game here is that the inaccurate reporting about Sicknick is the reason that the folks in law enforcement made it a priority to go after people involved in the riot.
I can say with absolute confidence that if Sicknick were alive today, literally everything would have played out the same, just without the early inaccurate reporting.
The government doesn't need a cop dying to take the storming of the US Capitol very seriously.
Speaking of childish bullshitters, Tucker's next expert on the documentary is former regular Alex Jones guest and complete lunatic and felon, Ali Alexander.
We covered this on a past episode, but just think...
In case anyone didn't hear that, before he got involved in Republican politics, Ali Akbar, as he was then known, got arrested for, quote, stealing several items from a Fort Worth woman, and later, quote, he broke into a van, stole a debit card, and attempted to use it.
He pled guilty to debit card fraud and had to repay what he stole and got four years probation.
After that, he got involved in the McCain campaign at the local level in Dallas-Fort Worth.
He got in some hot water there after he was accused of, quote, endorsing voter fraud tactics.
We've talked a ton about Ali and how he's a Christian zealot on a level that even kind of dwarfs Alex himself.
He's a complete lunatic, and he was deeply involved with the Stop the Steal campaign, which itself grew out of the voter intimidation campaign that Roger Stone started for the 2016 election, also called Stop the Steal.
Trump won that election, though, so they didn't end up having to do much stuff that anyone would remember, and that's why this didn't happen then.
I don't want to rehash too much about Ali himself, because honestly, he's kind of a pathetic but very...
Unaccomplished scam artist.
All you really need to know about him, like, just to get a sense of his caliber, is that he was the third wheel on Laura Loomer and Jacob Wall's documentary where they went to Minnesota to try and prove that Ilhan Omar was married to her brother.
What I do find interesting here is how Tucker is using Ali to express this feeling of being singled out and maligned because he had an Arab name, but at no point does Tucker recognize that his professional activities directly contributed to the difficulty Ali had in those years.
Tucker was pro-Iraq war and then decided it was a bad idea to invade.
However, he didn't think it was a bad idea because war is a bad idea.
In a 2008 recording of an appearance he made on the radio show hosted by Bubba the Love Sponge, Tucker said, Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semi-literate primitive monkeys.
That's why it wasn't worth invading.
It wasn't an opposition to war that turned Tucker against the Iraq War.
It was a feeling that the people of Iraq were less than human, which is definitely a part of the mentality that led folks to look at all Muslims and folks with Arabic-sounding names as suspicious and less than human.
Another clip from 2006 included Tucker talking about how if a Democratic candidate in the 2008 election came out and promised to kill as many, quote, lunatic Muslims as they could, they would, quote, be elected king and that Tucker would vote for them.
This hypothetical candidate would need to have the right kind of messaging, though.
Quote, I think you need to say, look, I'm a bigot, okay?
I'm a bigot.
I don't like Islamic extremists.
Like, if you're really heavily into Islam, I really, I'm sorry.
I just don't, I don't care for you that much.
And I don't care what that sounds like.
You can call me a racist.
You can call me whatever the fuck you want.
Tucker made a lot of money off being a part of the problem that Ali Alexander is now on a Tucker Carlson documentary complaining about, but the blame is solely on other people.
So that last clip was of Crystal Bald, one of the hosts of Rising on The Hill TV.
The way this clip is played is somehow meant to imply that she was supportive of Stop the Steal efforts that Ali was engaging in or that larger picture there was stealing in the election.
But here's what she actually said about Ali in the Stop the Steal.
I could have made this radar endless, in part because of that additional reporting from Pedro Gonzalez about how much of the money in the whole Stop the Steal thing, tiny amounts of it, Actually went to any sort of, like, legal efforts or election fraud thing.
And look, obviously, I think all the Stop the Shit Steal and election fraud stuff was bullshit.
Anyway, the clip Tucker is playing to reinforce this idea that Ali Alexander Stop the Steal shit had bipartisan appeals from Crystal Ball talking about the Democratic Party's handling of the Iowa caucus.
There absolutely was no bipartisan support for Stop the Steal in any meaningful way.
Also, about that whole thing about no police reports being filed at Stop the Steal rallies, what about that one in December 2020 where four people were stabbed Hmm.
There was a woman arrested for assault at a November 2020 Stop the Steal rally at the Idaho State Capitol.
A man was arrested for tearing a woman's mask off at a November 2020 Stop the Steal rally in Pensacola.
That assault was actually caught on tape and went around social media, so Ali should probably know that people are aware of that one.
Four people were arrested, one of them for spraying mace in the face of a legal observer from the National Lawyers Guild at a November 2020 Stop the Steal rally in Salem, Oregon.
We could go on.
I'm sure there are more, but I think the point is clear.
There's been plenty of police reports and arrests at Stop the Steal rallies.
Ali is just saying that there weren't because it makes him feel better to pretend that that's the case.
And as an added bonus, it allows him to continue his woe is me act, which is all a bunch of fucking horse shit.
able to get a permit himself, and that the Stop the Steal rally would never be approved since the limit for a permit on that lot is 50 people.
It stands to reason that Ali had used a dummy organization to get a permitted spot where he could then do a pop-up Stop the Steal rally.
In the permit application itself, you'll find some fascinating things.
For instance, in the report filed by the Capitol coordinator, he documents his conversation with the organizer of the event, Stephen Brown, and says, quote, purpose of his event does not give me any idea of what he wants to bring attention to other than it's a First Amendment demonstration.
Initially, they had wanted the larger space that's closer to the Capitol building itself, Area 9, but it was already claimed.
They were offered space on the other side of the building, but decided not to take it because they were convinced that Women for America First was going to have a rally over there, and they didn't want to mix it up with them because apparently they don't like them, so they took the smaller lot in number 8. From what I've seen, Women for America First is very confrontational.
So is Alex.
Yeah.
unidentified
In communicating with Brown, the coordinator started to notice a heavy overlap in this proposed event and Stop the Steal events.
Quote, I explained that it appears that Stop the Steal and One Nation Under God is one in the same due to the similarities and affiliation with Ali Alexander.
I advised Mr. Brown of my concerns of not being able to regulate their numbers to 50 persons or less.
If his event is in fact one in the same, Capitol Police will not be able to accommodate his event due to the participant number being out of regulations and a public safety issue.
Per Mr. Brown, he communicated all the rules with his group to include the 50 persons or less, and they're aware that they have to keep their numbers regulated to 50 persons.
You get a pretty strong sense that what was going on is a bit shady, and if I had to make a bet, I would say that Allie and the folks with One Nation Under God, that rally, they were lying.
to the Capitol Police in order to have a permit for a rally they knew in advance was going to get out of control.
Even if the Capitol hadn't been stormed, if Ali's rally had attracted the crowd that he was clearly planning for, the Capitol Police would have been overwhelmed and it would have turned ugly.
He has a permit for an area where they're allowed to have 50 persons or less, and even before the Capitol has stormed, he's here saying that they're leading 15, 20,000 people.
There is absolutely no way that this is in keeping with the terms.
If you look at the Capitol coordinator stuff, they are talking about how they will not be able to uphold their end of the bargain and it will be a public safety issue.
On his third glass of scotch at Whiskey Fest, he's sitting there and he's thinking, I could have been somebody, but I fucking made a documentary where I'm treating Ali Alexander like a serious person.
And I can't believe that anybody who would be aware enough of Ali Alexander to put him in a documentary wouldn't also be aware of what a shady liar he is.
Within 48 hours of the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh had been arrested, yet it's been the better part of a year since January 6th, and the masterminds behind this supposed insurrection have never been found.
If Ali Alexander and Stop the Steal didn't inspire to promote violence on that day, then who did?
Tucker is asking a question here that's based on a false premise.
The basic idea is that if the insurrection wasn't planned by Allie and Stop the Steal, it must have been planned by someone.
And because the suspects weren't found as fast as the cases of Oklahoma City and 9-11, you know, ooh, it's suspicious that we don't have the mastermind.
So this whole thing is dumb for a number of reasons.
The first being that there doesn't need to be a mastermind behind the events of the 6th in order for there to be loads of coordination of little things that were the sort of things that tend to lead to a huge problem mixed in with some things that might have been accidental or coincidences.
For instance, Ali and his group having a permit specifically for an area meant for 50 or less people when he's trying to bring thousands to the Capitol is bad planning.
Because it's a shithead like Ali, I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know that more than 50 people would show up, and I believe that his actions definitely or at least intentionally...
Or fraudulent.
Yeah.
unidentified
Conversely, I would be willing to bet that Trump saying in his speech that everyone should go to the Capitol and that he was going to go with them.
That may have been a happy accident for the people who wanted shit to get out of hand so that when Congress was there, they wouldn't be able to certify the electoral vote, or even better, Congress members would see the chaos and be intimidated into not certifying it.
As for Timothy McVeigh, it was pretty easy because police found a rear axle of the rider truck that had been rented by McVeigh to do the bombing, so that was a pretty fast lead.
Tucker says that McVeigh was arrested within 48 hours of the bombing, but he was actually arrested way faster than that when he was pulled over for not having tags on his car, and also for...
Carrying a loaded gun.
It took a little longer for them to figure out that he was a suspect in the bombing, but when they did, he was already in custody, and they found Terry Nichols because he gave Terry Nichols' brother's address to the police when he was in prison.
I would agree, though, that it's pretty scary that the FBI hasn't identified the person or the quote-unquote mastermind who planted bombs at the DNC and RNC headquarters yet, but I'm not sure that that helps Tucker's case at all, so I'm gonna go ahead.
Well, if not, then the people who did it were the people that we say did it.
So it's got to be agent provocateurs pretending to be people that we say that they did in order to frame the people who didn't do it, the people who are so peacefully chanting Christ is King.
January 6th was just, you know, mom and dad who were mad about what they saw to be an election that they thought was unfair, rigged, fortified, stolen.
So you can see here how this documentary itself is internally inconsistent in terms of the point it's trying to make.
Tucker intros this section clearly implying that the people who were responsible for the riot were agents provocateur, but then Elijah Schaefer's comments make no sense in that context.
Elijah's saying that these were moms and dads who were gaslit by the media into thinking that they could riot and get away with it because the left did.
That would imply that these moms and dads did riot, probably planning to do so because they thought they could get away with it, and their excuse was to pretend like the left doesn't get in trouble, so why should they?
Also, this is even sort of in contrast to the earlier presentation that was being made in this documentary that this is all overblown and it's a blood libel against MAGA.
Yeah, I mean, I feel like an interview with a Trump supporter saying we came here to show them that we mean business does not support his conclusion that they were all just out there for a fun time.
Explain to me how a provocateur gets a crowd of thousands to do something that they instinctively don't want to do on account of them screaming Christ is king in unison so much, right?
So if there's an agent provocateur, sure, that person has malicious intent.
It would be, the way that they would do it would be to, like, attack the police so the police gas the crowd or something like that, and then that angers the crowd enough to...
Conversely, of the person crimes, 69 out of 181 of those cases were accepted, with 19 also additional facing possible charges later, and 45 additional cases being rejected due to insufficient evidence.
For property crimes, 81 out of 135 cases were accepted, and 21 out of 33 weapons crimes were accepted for prosecution.
The comment Elijah made was specifically about Portland, but really he's trying to point a finger at all the protests from last year in the wake of the George Floyd killing.
An AP analysis of over 300 federal cases that resulted from incidents connected to George Floyd protests, quote, more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes, including rioting, arson, and conspiracy.
More than 70 defendants who've been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars.
At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.
in the relation to folks with the January 6th cases.
There may be a lot of folks who get arrested, but a whole lot of them are going to have their charges dropped and they'll be cut very generous deals where they plead guilty to some nonsense misdemeanor and then they end up doing no jail time.
So the important thing here is how the right-wing media propagandists, their mind works, how it works for them.
To someone like Elijah Schaefer of Glenn Beck's Blaze Network, everyone on the left who was protesting didn't get in any trouble.
That story is real to him.
It feels real, and it makes him mad.
But it's not real.
The anger is real, and it's the massive part of the right-wing persecution complex which Elijah uses to make a ton of money off exploiting, but it's not connected to reality.
They don't do follow-up work and check to see if any of the people on the left-wing who were arrested got charged, because if they did, they'd have to face the fact that the profitable and satisfying anger that they use is a lie.
Also, Elijah Schaefer was totally in the Capitol.
He wasn't just on the scene.
He was in the Capitol on January 6th.
He was the guy who tweeted out a picture of Nancy Pelosi's open laptop on her desk with the comment, quote, breaking, I am inside Nancy Pelosi's office with the thousands of revolutionaries who have stormed the building.
So I guess the question I'm left with is if the people who stormed the Capitol that day were revolutionaries or if they were moms and dads who got caught up in the excitement.
I don't know if Elijah knows the dip, another fucking loser in this documentary.
It's so easy and it works because people will instantly hear a bunch of middle-aged white people chanting Christ is King and go, well, they can't be bad.
The group was established in 1988 by Frank Gaffney Jr., a former Reagan administration member, and it was a super, super hawkish group during the Iraq War.
Gaffney himself was an insider and advisor to the Bush administration, and as late as 2005, you can find him writing op-eds about how the Patriot Act is, quote, the most important piece of domestic security legislation adopted since 9-11.
In 2006, an article he wrote that was published by his own organization, the Center for Security Policy, in it, Gaffney wrote, quote, the real question that should be asked at the present Judiciary Committee hearings, and that will surely be posed when there's another attack, is, did the Bush administration engage in sufficient surveillance, not too much?
Was it wise, in a concession to civil libertarians, to restrict the use of NSA's signet tools, first by requiring that one of the parties must be outside the country?
And second, that they're tied to Al-Qaeda or an associated group.
Also, it should be pointed out that the Center for Security Policy's main thing is Islamophobia, and in the years since 9/11, they've been a think tank that has caused considerable pain to the Muslim community in America with their promotion of ideas like "creeping Sharia." They also released a reader series in 2015 about what they call "civilization jihad," which is their way of saying that Muslim immigration to the United States is actually colonization, and the quote pre-violent step in taking over the country.
J. Michael Waller has been published by the Center for Security Policy since at least 2005.
He was an active member of this group that was severely pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, and pro-acting like all Muslims were terrorists.
In 2003, Waller wrote an op-ed that argued that members of Congress who oppose the Iraq war should be tried for treason.
Quote, congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
Waller is in this documentary because he was at the Capitol on January 6th and eight days later he published an article titled, quote, I saw provocateurs at the Capitol riot on January 6th.
Right, but they were militia people, and we know because we have their pictures.
And then there were some young people who Waller thought were acting weird, so he, quote, presumed these fake Trump supporters were Antifa or something similar.
There was a scuffle, and then police threw some tear gas.
Then, quote, for a few seconds I saw what looked like police in a tussle with some marchers up front, what appeared to be an organized group in civilian clothes.
This organized group are the cell I call the plainclothes militants.
They fit right in with the MAGA people.
So Waller's evidence that he thought they looked...
His evidence is essentially that he thought they looked organized and that they looked like MAGA people, which is...
Proof that they're plainclothes militants trying to look like MAGA people?
Just because you're using real words and you're acting like we're in the real world doesn't mean you're not just describing fucking Hydra from a comic book.
His next piece of evidence that there were agents provocateur was that after the crowd got really mad and a bunch of people were charging police because tear gas canisters hit a little girl in the face, someone yelled, Forward!
Do not retreat!
Apparently, the use of the word retreat was suspicious because it sounded like a, quote, military operation.
Hey, buddy, if you think it's weird that MAGA folks are throwing around military terms, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.
When he reflected on the whole thing later, Waller decided that people encouraging folks After thinking about how best to lie about it, I've decided this lie is the way to go.
Yeah, legitimately there's zero evidence that's provided in this article other than thoughts that Waller had, which I don't find persuasive.
The piece de resistance of this argument is that after the chaos had already gotten going and the Capitol was already being stormed, Waller saw a group of approximately three dozen, quote, uniformed, agile younger men walking briskly single file.
These people were wearing uniforms, like they were in military uniforms and stuff, and they said, quote, we're taking the Capitol before disappearing, quote, under the scaffolding beneath the rotunda entrance.
Provocateurs were wearing plain clothes so they could look like MAGA folk, but I guess these people are identified as...
Hold on.
These people are identified as agent provocateurs because they're in weird military outfits, but then these other ones are agent provocateurs because they're in MAGA.
It's kind of like if you're trying to blend in or if you're trying not to, that's proof.
I think that this is probably a dramatized account of something Waller saw, but even if he saw a group of people wearing camo and acting like they were were in the army, that doesn't mean that they were agent provocateurs.
NPR reported that, quote, nearly one in five people charged over the alleged involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol appear to have military history.
And that's not even counting for the militia weirdos and cosplayers.
Nothing in Waller's account actually proves anything, but it's good enough to be proof for the...
He is also the expert who was interviewed to claim that Antifa was a gang filled with agents provocateur, likely run by a 50- to 70-year-old person who's been involved in orchestrating street violence from the shadows for decades.
In Lauren Southern's documentary Crossfire.
That film, you may recall, was directed by Scooter Downey, who's the co-writer of this Tucker series.
So Waller gives a little bit of a retelling here of his...
Most of the interview is basically just him saying, like, I know a bunch of stuff, I've been involved in things, and then retelling what is in that article, but in the article there's more detail.
So here he is talking about a little bit of stuff, and then Tucker makes a brilliant pivot.
unidentified
You can start seeing different units of age's provocateurs.
They were assembled right here on the Statue of Peace, and they were assembled in various places on this walkway, goading members of the crowd, trying to cause trouble.
John Sullivan is categorically not one of the people that Waller was talking about.
He's someone you can definitely argue is not a good influence, and people on the left didn't really want to associate with him even prior to the 6th.
It could be fair to say that some of the things that Sullivan was saying had the potential to be inciting that day, but that's also a really far cry from demonstrating in any way that he was there as a provocateur or working under the auspices of anybody.
So Taylor Hanson was on Infowars the day of the storming because he'd been inside and was apparently present when Ashley Babbitt was shot.
It's interesting that Tucker just credits him as a journalist, but weirdly, a Yahoo News article says that he's actually an anti-choice activist connected to a group called Baby Lives Matter.
That's not actually accurate.
He's not connected to that group.
He's the founder of it.
He made a bunch of headlines for going outside abortion clinics and writing Baby Lives Matter on the street.
In September 2020, he claims that he was beaten up by four Antifa Black Bloc members.
I'm not really sure how much of a journalist he is.
He honestly seems like more of an anti-abortion activist who has a pretty solid backstory to be mad at people he views as left-wing protesters.
For real, though, Taylor Hanson might be maybe the worst person to have in this documentary as a talking head for one specific reason.
He was on film in the Capitol at the scene of Ashley Babbitt's shooting, and no charges have been filed against him.
He's a walking refutation of the central premise of this documentary, which is that people who stormed the Capitol are being jammed up.
You should not have him in the documentary.
It brings way too much attention to that.
Also, as you brought up and as you predicted, they conveniently leave out the part where the night before, on January 5th, Taylor Hansen joined Owen Schroyer and some other journalists in filming themselves burning a Black Lives Matter flag.
And honestly...
I don't know why they didn't mention it in this documentary.
How is it not so easy for the mainstream media to report on this documentary, which they've done.
They've ad nauseum been like...
Tucker Carlson's new Patriot Purge thing and not just play Taylor Hansen saying something in the documentary and then play that fucking clip and be like, see?
And it almost, like, listening back to that, I haven't heard that in a while, and listening back to it almost makes, it almost feels like an initiation kind of thing.
Journalist Taylor Hanson was also at the Capitol on January 6th.
While living in Utah, he was attacked by members of John Sullivan's group.
unidentified
And it was, you know, right shortly after George Floyd died.
I was riding my motorcycle downtown.
You know, for some reason there was just this huge car rally.
I had no idea what it was.
For some reason.
I had to move back and forth between these cars.
Shortly after George Floyd.
I ended up pulling over, and that's when I actually first encountered John Sullivan and his group, Insurgents USA.
And Antifa attacked me, ruining my bike, and basically just, I mean, I actually had a gun pointed to my head at that rally specifically, and that was from John Sullivan's Insurgents USA.
Look, I don't know if Taylor was attacked multiple times, but he made a bunch of headlines in outlets like the Christian Post in September 2020 when he was beaten and bloodied when he claims he was attacked by Antifa.
The problem is that wasn't in Utah.
That was in Portland.
And the pictures of Hanson from this article in the Christian Post of the Post, his face after the beating, it's exactly the pictures that are used in this documentary to illustrate Taylor Hanson's beating.
So these articles about Taylor's assault that happened in Portland, mysteriously absent from them and from Taylor's account at the time, is any mention of John Sullivan, and he actually specifically says that they didn't have a gun.
Quote, I'm thankful they stopped the beating when they did and didn't use weapons to inflict harm or death upon me.
I was going to try and be cute and facetious and pretend that Taylor was beaten up twice, but decided to keep the second one a secret until now, and that Tucker's producers just accidentally used the wrong photos, but I'm fucking tired.
Occam's Razor tells me that Taylor may have been beaten up by some dudes in Portland, and he's now trying to rewrite the story to involve some new flashy characters like John Sullivan and some heightened drama like this guy.
At this point in the documentary, I realize that we're still on episode one of this bullshit, and I'm exhausted.
The claims that are being made are sensational and full of shit.
The people being treated as experts, being interviewed, are pretty much all well-known right-wing frauds and propagandists.
It's almost unbearably shitty to try and view this as a serious project that someone like Tucker would release.
It's so bad from an information standpoint, and the people he's associated with, with are deeply troubling.
But I suspect that his audience, he knows that they won't hold his inaccuracies against him, and I guess that hanging out with shady weirdos is basically his thing now.
Not only has the government sponsored, funded, and armed terror groups fighting our foreign adversaries, federal agencies have a long history of ensnaring American citizens in manufactured plots.
It may sound like a conspiracy theory until you learn the undisputed details.
Yeah, those things are true, but that doesn't justify Tucker's intended conclusion, namely that this is what happened on January 6th, that the good old patriots were ensnared by the feds.
The federal government thwarted an alleged plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan in a manner that included, shockingly enough, storming the state capitol.
According to a report in BuzzFeed, Michigan State Police stood down and let protesters, including those in full tactical gear, Enter the building unopposed.
unidentified
Why haven't you called for backup?
Where is your backup?
This is our damn Capitol building!
And y 'all are letting it get destroyed on your watch!
That definitely could be an interesting parallel that proves that the same shadowy forces that did the false flag of January 6th also staged the storming of the Michigan State Capitol.
Or you could say that the right wing has a pattern of taking over Capitol buildings.
One of these is an almost embarrassingly simpler explanation.
Right-wing militia folks love taking things over, like the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.
Also, these folks have yet to prove that the feds were responsible for the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer.
The alleged leader of that group, Adam Fox, definitely isn't an FBI informant, which you'd know because most of the claims that the FBI set the group up are just right-wing media sources repeating what his lawyer has said in his defense.
There's an ABC News headline that you could choose to report in two different ways, depending on what you wanted to convey.
You could go with, quote, That would strongly suggest that the FBI was behind this shit, and that's, you know, part of the headline.
If you want to, you can go and read the criminal complaint against the members of this militia group in Michigan who were charged.
And it's hard to come away with the impression that anyone was set up.
Quote, in early 2020, the FBI became aware through social media that a group of individuals were discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law enforcement components.
Among those identified were Croft and Fox.
Through electronic communications, Croft and Fox agreed to unite others in their cause and take violent action against multiple state governments that they believed are violating the U.S. Constitution.
Quote, They decided to hold a meeting on June 6th, and one of the people they invited was a confidential informant for the FBI who was wearing a wire and recorded the whole thing.
Quote, They discussed different ways of achieving their goal, from peaceful endeavors to violent actions.
At one point, several members talked about state governments they believed were violating the U.S. Constitution, including the government of Michigan and Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Several members talked about murdering tyrants and taking a sitting governor.
At that point, they realized they needed numbers, though, because they were a pretty small group, so they reached out to another militia group that was based in Michigan.
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to them, this militia group already had an FBI informant in it, since back in March, they'd flipped a member of the group when they brought him in for questioning about how this militia group was trying to collect local law enforcement members' home addresses.
So they had this group that they had invited an FBI informant into, and a militia group that was already infiltrated for other reasons.
So you had these two groups, which both have moles in them, and they decided to combine forces.
And it's just an embarrassingly sloppy affair.
Reading over this criminal complaint is just a laundry list of pointing out super illegal things these dudes did while they were being secretly recorded.
Just because there were feds in the group doesn't mean that the feds entrapped these people.
It's a sensible question to ask, and by all means, it should be a point that is brought up and looked at.
And there have been instances of that in the past, of people getting jammed up.
But the fact that something could possibly be true is not the same thing as it actually being true.
Based on the available information, I don't find the argument that the Whitmer kidnapping plot was a FBI setup.
I don't find that convincing at all.
I do, however, understand how dudes like everyone in this documentary need to believe it's fake.
I mean, you're gonna need that to negotiate your independence, and there's no way that the government is gonna allow you to do that unless you have at least two, one of which you have to set off in order to prove that you will.
It's basically just a misrepresentation of a headline from BuzzFeed.
Quote, the FBI allegedly used at least 12 informants in the Michigan kidnap plot.
I didn't initially understand exactly where Tucker was getting the 18 number from because on October 8th, the FBI announced they'd filed charges against 13 Michigan militia members, with at least six of them being charged in connection directly to the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer.
If you read the court filing, you'll see that there were two confidential informants as well as two undercover employees mixed in with the folks who were plotting to kidnap and ultimately kill Whitmer because they did a horrible job in operation.
security.
unidentified
They weren't convinced to do this by the cops in their ranks.
They were just so dumb that they had cops recording all of their meetings.
If I had to guess, and I do believe that this is the case, I would say that the root of this narrative about 18 people, you know, 12 out of the 18 people are informants, comes from a headline of this story in the Gateway Pundit.
Quote, it was a setup.
FBI used at least 12 informants in Whitmer kidnapping case with only 6 defendants.
Add that together, 18. If you only go based on that headline and you don't look any further into the story, you can just add those numbers together and get 18 people, 12 of whom are feds.
However, that is not the truth, and it's either an indication of being too lazy to report this accurately, or a desire to willfully disseminate false information.
Any responsible reporter would know that there were, quote, eight other men charged under Michigan's anti-terrorism statutes for providing material support to the plotters.
There were only six people who were charged with the actual conspiracy to kidnap plot, and eight charged with providing support.
Some of these people aided in staking out Whitmer's house, and one had hosted their meetings at his home, so that kind of stuff is what these other eight folks did.
You'll notice that there's actually a total of 14 people.
Instead of 13, I said were charged on October 8th, and that's because one other guy got arrested and charged a little bit later.
Anyone repeating the narrative that 12 out of the 18 people involved in the Michigan kidnapping plot were feds...
It's just regurgitating far-right media talking points.
It's unfortunate when just an average person on the street does this, but it's horrific to see Tucker doing it in this dumb documentary.
That implies that the standard he has for information is so low that he could report this based on a misleading Gateway Pundit headline, or that he knows it's misinformation and includes it in the documentary anyway.
Having grown up in a world where Tucker Carlson has been a public figure the whole time, I'm gonna bet it's the second one.
Many of the individuals involved in this plot have been associated with the very same militia group that the government has attempted to associate with 1-6.
So this is a reference to the fact that there were members of the Three Percenters who were at the Capitol riot on January 6th, and that some members of the groups involved in the plot were also associated with the three percenters.
This doesn't prove or even suggest that the events are related as some sort of conspiracy.
It's really just a reflection of how three percenters are.
Pretty fucked up folks have a tendency towards doing fucked up and violent things.
presumably in the name of defending the Constitution.
Yeah.
unidentified
I don't really understand how this detail is being presented as some kind of support for I mean, that's a little bit like being like, aha, see, now did you see this?
The head of the Detroit field office of the FBI, who presumably oversaw all of those agents who would have been actively involved in inciting the Michigan kidnapping plot.
Subsequent to that, he was quietly and suspiciously promoted to a high position within the DC field office, where he now oversees the investigation.
The first thing is that Darren Beattie, who's talking here, has absolutely not proven in any way that the FBI agents in Michigan were, quote, involved in inciting the plot.
He's asserted it, and Tucker has provided inaccurate information that he thinks supports the assertion, but nothing so far has established this or even come close.
If he's wrong, if BD is wrong, and the FBI agents in Michigan in that case didn't do anything wrong, then who cares if a guy goes from one FBI office to another?
This is a bit of a promotion since he would be overseeing a larger FBI office, but his bio makes me think that he probably also wanted to go to D.C. because that's where he spent a lot of his career.
From 1998 to 2004, he was at that same D.C. field office, whereupon he spent four years teaching at the FBI Academy.
After that, he transferred back to the D.C. office.
He was there for another six years before going to St. Louis, and then he ended up in Detroit in 2019.
He seems to have a pretty accomplished career, but also one with roots in D.C., and I don't think it seems suspicious at all that he would be offered that position and accept it.
That position only became available because the person previously in that position, Timothy Slater, had been transferred to lead the Washington D.C. field office, the same position that he would end up going to later.
Oh, so what happened was, right, they transferred him out in advance of this guy taking over the Michigan office to lay the groundwork for the eventual overthrow of the governor's mansion.
Just in case there was something where the Detroit field office was a farm system for the DC field office, I went and checked the other people who have been...
Anyway, Darren thinks that this is a smoking gun kind of revelation, but it's really more of a who cares.
If you don't believe all the bullshit about the Whitmer kidnapping plot being an FBI setup, then all that happened here is that a well-respected FBI agent in charge of a field office was put in charge of a larger FBI field office.
Even if you do believe that the Whitmer kidnapping plot was an FBI setup, that still doesn't make this that good of a piece of...
Folks like Darren or Tucker or Alex, for that matter, they don't really understand what it means to prove or demonstrate something, and I suspect a large part of that is because their audience, they don't incentivize them doing so.
The attention economy that they profit off of is much more interested in shocking twists and surprise reveals, so it's easy to blow people's minds by pointing out that the head of the D.C. office used to be the head of the Detroit office, and then take credit for having proven that the large events in both places were secret FBI plots.
The actual content and arguments being made are meaningless, but they leave viewers with the feeling of having something was revealed to them.
And that revelation is being sort of sidetracked and perverted into convincing the audience that, hey...
So, there was this, like, famous neocon guy, alright?
And he supported all of these middle-of-the-road rhino policies for the longest time.
But then, okay, and this is gonna blow your mind.
Then...
Then he saw an opportunity to make more money doing something else, right?
So he took a job to do that other thing, even though he didn't really believe any of the bullshit, because he's still that neocon from way back when, Dan.
Do you get it?
He's controlled opposition from the neocons to run the new populist movement, man!
I'm not saying that the FBI controls Tucker Carlson.
I'm just saying that they're choosing a specific FBI agent to go after, not the head of the D.C. office at the time of the Michigan overthrow, because that's the guy who would really be running...
Bald-faced fuck you of someone who knows what they're saying isn't true, saying no decent person would want to believe this.
No decent person would want to believe this.
So you, you idiots, you fucking rubes watching this dumb documentary, by the very fact that you want this shit to be true, Tucker Carlson is letting you know you're a fucking pile of shit.
So watching this documentary I found to be a pretty chilling experience.
It lacked the emotional arc of Stefan Molyneux's Poland documentary, which at least had the cathartic ending when he realized he was a white nationalist.
It lacked the entertaining bombast, fake crying, and sometimes interesting tangents that something Alex makes usually has.
It really is a lot of the same trash information and repackaged bigotry just being delivered in a more presentable package.
One of the things that really troubled me watching this is that I honestly don't know what anyone can do about it.
This documentary is full of obvious and transparent lies, but Tucker has cultivated an audience that doesn't really care, and they think that George Soros controls all fact-checkers.
The impulse you would seem to have would be to spread the message that this thing is bullshit as loudly and as publicly as you can, but having watched it, I think that's kind of what they want.
Tucker didn't release this on Fox Nation because Fox News wouldn't let him air it on his show.
It's no more unhinged or offensive than anything else he airs on a regular basis.
This was released on Fox Nation as a promotional campaign, and the left-wing and mainstream media backlash against how full of shit this documentary is, it plays into the campaign at least a little bit.
I don't want to seem like I'm trying to say that Tucker should be ignored or anything like that.
I'm just not confident that people in the mainstream media have the ability to address this kind of material without fucking up and essentially just helping spread the documentary to a wider audience.
These kinds of tense, These situations and events will end up happening, whether it's by people like Tucker and Alex facilitating it, or by them not, and their audience turning against them because they're not hardcore enough.