Knowledge Fight dissects Patriot Purge, Tucker Carlson’s Fox Nation series, exposing its reliance on discredited figures like Ali Alexander (a felon tied to Stop the Steal) and J. Michael Waller (SPLC-listed extremist) to push a "white terror" narrative. They debunk claims of FBI orchestration in the Whitmer kidnapping plot—only 2 of 13 charged were informants—and mock Carlson’s selective framing, including Taylor Hansen’s (Baby Lives Matter founder) uncharged Capitol presence. The episode argues Carlson’s propaganda mirrors Alex Jones’ tactics, fueling outrage for profit while ignoring actual violence, and warns such conspiracy-driven movements risk uncontrollable escalation. [Automatically generated summary]
My favorite part, though, is all the challenges, you know, how they show up somewhere and they're like, you can go to this one or you can go to this one.
They always make it seem like it's such a huge choice and you have to go like across the entire way.
But if you, if you like, every now and then you can get a glimpse and they're like right next to each other.
And also the, like, sometimes the things they have to choose between doing.
Like, because, you know, when they get to, 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.
Yeah.
And like sometimes they're about as hard as each other, and sometimes one of them is requires Herculean effort.
So, Jordan, we're going to talk here about this Patriot purge.
Sure.
And it's very closely related to a lot of Alex Jones stuff.
So it feels in the ballpark.
And I texted you about this.
I think that there is a shocking overlap.
And then some really particularly important differences between the kind of stuff that Tucker is putting out here and the stuff that Alex puts out routinely.
And I hope that that is something that we can explore and think about as we go through this content.
Good.
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 an 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.
For instance, they're currently on season eight of a show called The Furman Diaries, where disgraced detective Mark Furman discusses important criminal cases from his.
Also, the Furman Diaries shouldn't be confused with the Furman Tapes, which were 13 hours of recorded interviews where Furman said all sorts of racist shit and also discussed how he's an active participant in racist policing practices.
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.
And a whole deluge of boring-ass Fox News-style content.
According to an article in Forbes, in June 2020, the Fox Nation had between, you know, 200,000 subscribers somewhere in that range, which is not super great numbers for this platform.
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 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 something or it doesn't get made.
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 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.
This isn't to say that nothing in the documentary series is sincere.
It's just important to recognize that some of the marketing and branding surrounding it was intentionally sensational for the sake of driving traffic and selling subscriptions.
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.
Sure.
But there is essentially an overarching conspiracy that's being pushed.
A group of folks who aren't specified, maybe the deep state, maybe the globalists, maybe the permanent government.
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 info wars, 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 king of the fucked up right-wing mountain, he's going to have to take some kind of a big narrative risk.
You know, he's got to start beating his own path through the woods.
And 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.
You know, 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 find out.
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, Streets is a Mother Tucker.
So let's start off here at the beginning of the documentary where sort of laying out the theme, the premise, and playing a bunch of clips that are in support of his narrative.
unidentified
In the years after 9-11, the media and the national security state, he can't distinguish between Al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
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.
Before we go any further, I wanted to take a moment to discuss people and the crew in this documentary, people who worked behind the scenes, because if you check out a little bit of this, you might end up seeing that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
The two credited writers of this film are Tucker and a guy named Scooter Downey.
Scooter is a filmmaker who directed Lauren Southern's latest offering called Crossfire.
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.
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 Stephon 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.
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 he did.
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 8th, 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 8th, 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 uh plausible deniability range.
Sure, yeah, 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.
And honestly, that is a disqualifying comment.
I can't, it's awful.
The blood libel is an insidious false accusation that's fueled generations of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and it's 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.
It is a time-honored and effective way for them to kind of neutralize so much horrific shit by just claiming that, no, it's happening to us and using those terms to the point where it lowers their effect.
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.
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 and the fact that a sizable amount of Tucker's audience believes in actual blood libel is astonishingly bad stuff.
As for the issue with Officer Sicknick, there definitely was some bad reporting done on that front.
I can't dispute that and I can't argue with it.
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 that was available 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.
I don't know how you qualify the volume of a retraction, but 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, the death of Officer Sicknick will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department's homicide branch.
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 D.C. 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.
Sure.
So I don't know where you're going to point the finger.
People like Tucker and Beatty 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 had 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 or 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 24-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 Beatty can still fuck himself for the blood libel thing, but that all the sections of the media have some room for improvement.
So it's fair that the media outlets like the Times did retract our articles that included this information, but that's kind of what outlets do when they get things wrong.
Yeah, you remember that part where the media that they said lies all the time, they use a clip of them saying that Brian Sicknick was correcting themselves?
Yeah, you remember how the media they say is lying to you also came out and said the thing that is not a lie.
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.
Each of these instances are fairly loose in terms of where you might want to assign real responsibility about the deaths, but 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 like 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 Sick Nick'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 that he hangs out with at the H.L. Mencken Club.
So there's this idea that they're kind of floating that is that Sick Nick'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.
Just as non-existent weapons of mass destruction were used to justify violence first war on terror, a false news story published by the New York Times became the pretext for a national crackdown.
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 Sicknik were alive today, literally everything would have played out the same just without the early inaccurate reporting.
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 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 dorfs 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.
I don't want to rehash too much about Ali himself because honestly, he's kind of a pathetic but very accomplished 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 Ilon 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 Steel efforts, that Allie was engaging in, or that, you know, larger picture there was stealing in the election.
But here's what she actually said about Allie and the Stop the Steel.
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 Steel 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 Allie Alexander Stop the Steel shit had bipartisan appeal is from Crystal Ball talking about the Democratic Party's handling of the Iowa caucus.
There absolutely was no bipartisan support for Stop the Steel in any meaningful way.
Also, about that whole thing about no police reports being filed at Stop the Steel rallies, what about that one in December 2020 where four people were stabbed and quote, at least 33 people were arrested.
There was a woman arrested for assault at a November 2020 Stop the Steel rally in Idaho at the Idaho State Capitol.
A man was arrested for tearing a woman's mask off at a November 2020 Stop the Steel rally in Pensacola.
That assault was actually caught on tape and went around social media.
So Allie 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 Steel 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 Steel rallies.
Allie 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 horseshit.
We coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police nearly every day.
A lot of people don't know that Stop the Steel actually had a permit on Capitol itself and not the Capitol Plaza, the Capitol Grounds, Law 8.
We had a permit.
So let's just imagine this.
20 to 50,000 people inside the president's park.
We're sitting there at the very front.
I'm dead center of the president, front row.
A Trump campaign staffer walks up to me and says, you know, Ali, there are people leaving the overflow and there are already tens of thousands of people at the U.S. Capitol.
With your presence and the presence of Alex Jones, why don't you guys walk down Pennsylvania, gather people together, and then position them for your rally on lot eight.
So this permit was sought almost certainly because Allie knew fully well that he would never be able to get a permit himself and that the Stop the Steel rally would never be approved since the limit for a permit on that lot is 50 people.
It stands to reason that Allie had used a dummy organization to have get a permitted spot where he could then do a pop-up Stop the Steel 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.
In communicating with Brown, the coordinator started to notice a heavy overlap in this proposed event and Stop the Steel events.
Quote, I explained that it appears that Stop the Steel and One Nation Under God is one and the same due to the similarities in 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 and 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 Ali 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 Allie'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.
Like there's there's clear indications of malignant attempt.
He has a permit for an area where they're allowed to have 50 persons or less.
And even before the Capitol is stormed, he's here saying that they're leading 15, 20,000 people.
Like, there is absolutely no way that this is in keeping with the terms.
Like, if you look at 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.
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, Allie 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 Allie, 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 are at least intentionally severely irresponsible.
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 might not have been planned in advance.
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.
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 going to go ahead and call that one a push.
Well, if not, then the people who did it were the people that they that, you know, 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.
It doesn't matter what you say it is.
They were just angry, and a lot of them just got caught up in the front lines of chaos.
unidentified
Oh my gosh, who's got tear gassed in the middle of a prayer?
I happen to believe that a lot of the ways they treated rioters that were left-wing Kamala Harris was working to help the instigators, the criminals, get out of jail.
Given the narrative that there's no consequences for acts of violence, even on federal grounds, cases being dropped from the federal siege in Portland by leftist rioters.
I believe that was part of setting a narrative to gaslight the right wing into thinking that they could riot too and get away with it.
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 is 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?
If Elijah wants to infantilize the members of his political community to this extent, I guess that's his prerogative, but it just, I mean, it doesn't look good.
So 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 and all this.
And now there's agent provocateurs, so there was bad things that were, you know, like you wouldn't have agent provocateurs if she didn't get pretty out of hand and bad fucking things happen.
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 function.
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.
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.
The narrative that's perpetuated by right-wing shitheads is that the right-wing folk get in trouble for stuff that the left-wing folks get away with.
It's actually complete bullshit.
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 receive prison terms of five years or more.
The same sort of phenomenon is probably what you're going to end up seeing 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.
That's what's going to happen.
And then the people who maybe broke the windows of the Capitol or did do things like hit cops.
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.
Yeah, I mean, if you replaced all of their subjects with like, were there fairies in the crowd floating around giving us dust to get us high and send us to the Capitol?
It's possible.
There are some people who looked a little bit shorter than you might think.
Someone who might know is security analyst J. Michael Waller.
For years, Waller worked as a professional agitator.
unidentified
I'm a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy, and my area of specialization has been political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion.
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 are 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.
Three things that this documentary is pretending to be opposed to.
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.
It's a dumb and overwritten article with literally no proof of anything, so I'll save you the trouble of reading it.
The people in camouflage who were acting like disciplined soldiers, they weren't militia people.
They were actually plants who were there to attack the Capitol while the protests provided cover for them.
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.
When he reflected on the whole thing later, Waller decided that people encouraging folks to push forward was actually, quote, an organized sell of agents provocateur to corral people as an unwitting follow-on force behind the plainclothes militants tussling with police.
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.
I thought the 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 like in weird military outfits, but then these other ones are agent provocateurs because they're in MAGA.
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 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 right-wing media who's desperate for flimsy evidence that this event wasn't exactly what it appears to be.
J. Michael Waller is somebody who appears to have a fair amount of education in the field of political warfare, but even so, to take this seriously just because of that, it would require a serious amount of using the appeal to authority fallacy.
The argument is coming from someone with expertise, but it's also a really bad argument, and so it's still bad.
He was 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 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 agents 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 Hansen 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, quote, 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 Block 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 uses as left-wing protesters.
And for real, though, Taylor Hansen 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 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?
I don't know if it is that slam dunk for because like I'm saying, I don't think the people who this documentary appeals to would be turned off by burning a Black Lives Matter flag.
Journalist Taylor Hansen 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, and I had no idea what it was, you know, for some reason.
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 point into my head at that rally specifically, and that was from John Sullivan's Insurgents USA group.
Look, I don't know if Taylor was attacked multiple times, but he made a bunch of headlines and 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 Hansen 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 Hansen'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 Tyler, Taylor may have been beaten up by some dudes in Portland.
He's now trying to rewrite the story to involve some new flashy characters like John Sullivan and some heightened drama like this.
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 first part being true doesn't prove the second part.
Like, it just needs to do better.
This isn't, this isn't, like, it doesn't prove anything.
To an event that has now evaporated from memory and from the national cause.
And that is the so-called Whitmer kidnapping plot.
The alleged plan was to kidnap the governor and put her on trial for treason, all because of Michigan's COVID lockdown.
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 talked with 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 Malhoo or Wildlife Regiment.
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, Michigan governor kidnapped plot dreamt up by FBI informants.
That would strongly suggest that the FBI was behind this shit, and that's part of the headline.
Sure.
You can use the entire headline, though, and that is, quote, Michigan governor kidnap plot drumped up by FBI informants, accused leader claims, because that's the reality of it.
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.
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.
You're going to, yeah, I mean, you're going to need that to negotiate your independence, and there's no way that the government is going to 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 kill 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.
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, it 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 six 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 like 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 that is actually a total of 14 people instead of the 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 is 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 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 going to 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 Whitmer kidnapping 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 who have a tendency towards doing fucked up and violent things, presumably in the name of defending the Constitution.
I don't really understand how this detail is being presented as some kind of support for the documentary's thesis because it kind of works better the opposite way.
And if that isn't enough, I'll give you the cherry on top.
Hello.
I'm Stephen D'Antoineo.
The head of the Detroit field office of the FBI, who presumably oversaw all of those agents 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 D.C. field office, where he now oversees the investigation into 1.6.
The first thing is that Darren Beatty, 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 Beattie 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?
If you read the press release about his promotion, you'll learn that this was only sort of a promotion.
He was previously the special agent in charge at the Detroit Field Office.
And when he went to D.C., he was assistant director in charge of the Washington Field Office.
Both of these are supervisor positions at the top of the office hierarchy.
It's just that the LA, New York, City, and D.C. offices, they have assistant directors in charge as the boss, as opposed to the other 53 FBI field offices in the United States that are run by a special agent in charge, just because they're bigger officers.
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 accepted.
And 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.
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 evidence that January 6th was a setup.
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 DC 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 like convincing the audience that, hey, they proved that this is, look at this shit.
And he supported all of these middle-of-the-road rhino policies for the longest time.
But then, okay, and this is going to 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 want to make clear that you're not suggesting that.
That was like a.
I would hope that that was clearly a facetious tone of voice, but if not, I just want to make sure that no one thinks that you're suggesting that Tucker Carlson is legitimately working for neocons.
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 things.
Most Americans probably assume the chaos of January 6th was a result of intelligence failures or of simple government incompetence.
But direct incitement by federal agents, the intentional entrapment of American citizens, no decent person wants to believe that.
But increasingly, there's evidence it is true.
it makes you wonder if permanent washington is willing to launch a second war on terror on its own citizens what else are they capable of that's the end and i i I just was like, I'm not doing the other ones.
The blatant, the blatant, 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.
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.
I mean, you know, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard for media members to just go out and be like, hey, listen, so we watch this old Tucker thing.
Obviously, all he's really trying to do is rile us up to get more viewers to his fucking website.
So guess what?
Guess what, Tucker?
Not today.
Like, just say out loud on television, not today, Tucker.
i think alex should be scared i think tucker should be scared too though because this is not like i don't i don't think this is a road that goes very far no No.
It's kind of a flash in the pan to try and do this on a normal TV station.
These kinds of tense 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.
I can't believe that you would be that stupid and egotistical to think, no, just because I've seen this play out over and over and over again throughout human history, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to hang my hat on controlling this populist mob of murderers.