Tucker Carlson’s Georgia rally speech frames Trump’s potential victory as a "triumph of the human spirit," mirroring Nazi propaganda, while demonizing Democrats as exploiters of "weak men and unhappy women." He later claims a demon clawed him during sleep with his wife and four dogs, leaving wounds for 18 months—details he shared privately with Alex Jones but omitted from his own show. Jones, frustrated by Carlson’s narrative exclusion, pivots to his own childhood poltergeist story, invoking dark matter and ancient cultural "demonic attacks" as proof before absurdly promoting Elon Musk’s sperm bank. Their fringe media ecosystem thrives on performative mysticism, exposing how conspiracy rhetoric repackages fear and spectacle into political prophecy. [Automatically generated summary]
I've been horribly underwhelmed by Alex's coverage of the election up to this point.
Everything is a foregone conclusion to the point where it really just feels like a person who's going through the motions.
He's a person who's reached a lazy editorial conclusion, and his coverage of every story is just him attempting to spin things to support that conclusion.
It sucks.
It's uninspired.
And I'm not excited that he raffled off a truck to bring in attention to his new fake business that's outside the bankruptcy.
But I don't want to live in that malaise.
I don't want to be in that boardroom.
It's just awful.
This election is important, and there are exciting things going on.
Whether or not either candidate has all the policy positions you'd want, and being forced to see this through the prism of Alex Jones is just, ugh, it's no good.
This shit does matter.
And the only way that I felt like I could escape the boredom spiral that Alex was forcing upon me was to put him on the back burner.
So I thought what we would do is we would start off by listening to his speech that he gave on October 23rd at a rally in Georgia for Turning Point USA.
This was a Trump rally.
Great.
And so we're going to listen to a little bit of this and yeah, enjoy.
So Tucker says this is the first political rally he's spoken at, but I would argue that his entire tour was one big political rally, pretending to be an interview show.
A bunch of his guests were associated with the Trump campaign, including his VP choice, JD Vance, and Trump's son.
All Tucker does is political rallies, basically.
But even leaving that aside, Tucker spoke at the RNC this year.
Like, he can pretend that he hasn't made these kinds of appearances in the past, but it's bullshit.
And it's specifically meant to build the theme of this speech that he's going to give.
Just before he got on stage, there were speeches from RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
These are presumably supposed to be people who were on the left but saw the light, so now they've come over to the right-wing side.
Tucker is trying to fit that mold because it's very popular and they think it's a compelling pitch to undecided and tentative voters.
It's essentially a way of saying, come on in, the water's fine.
RFK and Tulsi switch teams and look at me.
I've never spoken a political rally, but here I am.
It's real easy to see Tucker saying triumph over and over and saying triumph of the human spirit.
And remember that the most famous Nazi propaganda film of all time is called Triumph of the Will.
And then you make a little bit of a connection there.
It would make sense to think that he's signaling to that direction, but his response would obviously be that he's just using the word triumph and referencing movie posters.
You're the weird one if your mind associates that with the Nazi stuff.
But there's a deeper problem here, which is: you know, have you ever watched Triumph of the Will?
No, of course not.
I've watched it.
And what Tucker is describing is literally the point of that film.
It's about how they tried for years since World War I to keep Hitler down and oppress the German people, but he withstood all the persecution and adversity.
And his 1934 arrival at the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, just after the night of the long knives, was the titular triumph of the will.
Sure, sure.
Either Tucker knows the way he's describing Trump is pretty similar to the image that's painted of Hitler in Triumph of the Will, and he's calling this rally and election a triumph of the human spirit, or it's just a crazy coincidence.
We need to win the election so you all don't feel like you're being judged for your political beliefs.
We have to win so you realize you're normal.
This thing is kind of thin because Trump won in 2016 and Tucker and all his dipshit friends insist he won in 2020.
So I don't see what him winning again would prove in terms of this moral victory.
Trump won in 2016 and the establishment in the mainstream wasn't forced to accept that all his fans were the normal ones.
That didn't happen then and it won't happen if he wins this year because he's cultivated a fan base that's intensely hostile, believes complete bullshit, and operates almost entirely on promises of punishing people for imaginary grievances.
If Trump wins, all these folks can raise a glass of champagne in celebration like they did at Infowars in 2016, but that won't change the fact that they're part of a very unhealthy and upsetting subculture.
I think I was reading something about how the Dodgers this year were like, oh, we just came out with this attitude of like, nobody believes in us and they don't think we can do it.
And it's like, you literally have the most money spent on the best players on your team.
Everyone believed in you because that's how money works.
When you put all the money into the thing, like, we believe that Trump could win.
And promising you some feeling of being normal or like everyone will have to look at you like a normal no, you remember how it was when he was president before and everybody was like just on edge, kind of angry all the time?
They punish anyone who contradicts the lie because it is so preposterous it can only be upheld through force.
And in the last three months, we have seen that lie dissolve like the wicked witch of the West under a bucket of water.
Look around.
Is this a room full of freaks and misfits?
No, it's not.
This is a room full of people who love their country enough to obey its laws, who sincerely believe in its founding precepts, who pay their taxes, who go to work.
The ever-shrinking percentage of Americans who work a 40-hour week, who expect nothing from the system, and who have given their lives for the system, who are born in this country and plan to die here.
And they're the most mistreated group in this nation.
And they're also the biggest group in this nation.
He's asking if this is a room full of weirdos, and he's speaking after RFK Jr.
If RFK Jr. is just normalized to the point where his presence on a speaker's list doesn't seem strange, then there's no standard for who is and is not a weirdo.
How many more headless bodies do we find in Central Park that are a mystery for decades, only to be revealed to be the fucking masterminded plan of former goddamn presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
But you can see how this all comes back to like these feelings of aggrievement.
It's all aggrievement and reassurances that you aren't weird for wanting to ban reproductive health care and make it illegal to wear certain clothes depending on what Tucker feels your gender is.
It's all just horseshit.
But like, I think that there's something so interesting about this relationship to weird because like it's the difference is exclusive versus inclusive weird.
If you are one of those people who is in their world of believing the things that they believe, and then you watch other people like you and I having fun and being cool and going out and doing fun stuff, well, then it doesn't seem like it's a very good idea to stay with the weird losers over there, right?
So then the people are like, oh, well, we could be like them, or let's kill them.
So that's how you get weird losers who want to kill you.
And it has ended thanks to the heroic stand that a couple of individuals have taken.
First among them, Elon Musk.
Elon Musk, who single-handedly saved the First Amendment to the Constitution, which let me remind you is not just a feature of America, it's the basis of America.
It's the First Amendment for a reason.
It's what separates the free from the enslaved.
Slaves are not allowed to say what they think.
Free men have God-given right to do so and will.
And this is the only country on earth in which that is guaranteed.
And without Elon Musk, it wouldn't be because he stands alone as the owner of a media platform that is still open.
There's only one, and it's X.
It's foreign-born Elon Musk.
And then for him to come out, and by the way, just for the record, I've taken not a dollar from Elon Musk, okay?
Hey, if I was at a political rally and I didn't immediately mention that a single lone figure who is, of course, a billionaire at odds with the very concept.
And when you see the richest man on planet Earth stand up there in a t-shirt and start jumping around on stage, he's also one of the biggest federal contractors.
So he's not weird because he's the richest guy in the world and he has business contracts with the government that he presumably would lose if Trump wins, which is not accurate.
He would probably stand to benefit a lot, especially considering Trump is talking about putting him in charge of cutting government programs, which I imagine he's not going to cut his own subsidies and stuff.
You have to cut your own stuff first to prove to everyone that what you mean is true.
So if you buy a website to maintain a perfect free speech with all that stuff, then the first thing you have to do is make sure that speech that you don't agree with personally is featured prominently and is equally protected.
You don't just like ban people who say things that you don't want to hear all the time.
The story the country tells itself about reality has flipped.
None of the normal people are supporting the democratic machine.
Tim Walz is supporting the democratic machine.
A man you would never allow to babysit your own children.
That's the archetype.
It's the party of weirdos, of envy, of hate, of resentment, of bitterness, of weakness, of a total lack of creativity.
It's a party of conformity.
It's a party of the machine, where it doesn't matter who the candidate is because individuals are immaterial.
All that matters is the collective.
That's the Soviet model.
And opposing them is the rest of the country.
Slowly waking up to the fact that these people have no moral authority whatsoever.
They have no legitimacy in a democracy where the government must rule by the consent of the government.
They have no consent.
And the way that they've treated this country over the past four years is the most shocking thing I've ever seen in 55 years.
To allow millions of people, mostly young men with no skills and no English, into our country illegally and then flag them around at our expense and give them phones and put them on welfare programs that no American citizen can get.
It is the most insulting.
Yeah, boo.
But it's worse than boo.
That's the biggest crime in the history of the United States of America.
And it takes incredible, it takes incredible stones, incredible gall for the people who did that to stand up there on a stage and give you a lecture about how you're immoral.
So Tucker is somewhat right that the story we're telling ourselves has changed.
The old story that we told ourselves wasn't totally accurate, and there are a lot of voices that were missing from it, but there have been people genuinely working toward making that story that we tell ourselves more true to reality, not just the subjective reality that you might want to choose to live in.
And that's really the issue with the narrative flip that Tucker is talking about.
He and the people in his community, they've changed some of the fundamentals about the story, but they haven't improved it or made it more close to reality.
They've just distorted certain bits and made up complete fictions in order to prop up the story that they want to tell, which is the story of my view of the world is the natural order, and all public policy should adhere to that.
Tucker likes to pretend that he's had to put up with so much because it's the only way to rationalize the very severe things he wants Trump to do should he get into power.
There's no way to justify his desires while still pretending to care about the rule of law or balance of power.
So it's critical that he insists Trump is responding to the greatest problem ever.
And if he needs to do a little more than a president normally should be able to, that's what he needs to do, man.
We're the normal ones, and the weird people won't let us be normal, and there are too many immigrants.
So we're probably going to have to just look the other way while Trump advocates for and does a ton of stuff that we pretend to be philosophically opposed to.
It's the only way we're going to get to be normal.
You just got to let your candidate do all the horrible stuff that you don't want them to do because if you don't, then the other candidate's going to win.
It's super important for Tucker to make sure that the audience feels normal and also that they feel like they're the victims who are just so nice and they've put up with so much for so long.
He needs to repeat these premises over and over again because if he doesn't, it's pretty hard to justify what he wants Trump to do as president.
Every murderer at least tries to pretend that their actions were done in self-defense because as a society, we understand that killing someone is wrong, but that there are circumstances where you're left with no choice.
Tucker wants to advocate for the political equivalent of murder, something that everyone should understand is wrong.
And in order to do that, it's critical that he pretend that it's just being done in self-defense.
And everybody's on the hook.
They have all agreed to this premise.
Yep.
I promise that this is frustrating and annoying, but there is a payoff.
You cannot reward the most parasitic, useless, violent, nasty, aggressive people in your country.
You can't make them the richest.
You just can't.
It's just wrong.
In a fair, decent country, the people who work the hardest, who have the highest level of talent, who are the most creative, who are the most decent to their neighbors, who give the biggest tips to waitresses, those people should be successful.
Those people should be revered.
It shouldn't be Larry Fink.
Are you joking?
Kamala Harris shouldn't have a job.
She has no skills.
How did we wind up with a system where Kamala Harris, you couldn't change the tire on your truck, much less drive it?
How did she wind up at the top of the pyramid?
And then once she's there, she lectures you like you did something.
It's too much.
You can't allow that.
It's an offense against the truth, against reality, and against justice itself.
So far, really, the only things that Tucker has said that he thinks that there's too much immigration and he doesn't like it when people make him feel weird.
I'm not totally sure what the horrible abuse of justice is that he's talking about, but if I use some context clues, I start to have some ideas.
It seems that Tucker believes that decent people should be rich.
That's cool, but I'm not sure how Trump or conservatism as a whole connects to that.
It's really easy to just point at Larry Fink and say that he shouldn't be rich, but what specific laws has he broken to accumulate his wealth that you think he should be charged with?
Or what laws do you think Trump will pass in order to address this out-of-control wealth accumulation?
Do you actually even care about that?
Or is this just whining?
This isn't about justice.
It's about throwing a tantrum.
And you can kind of tell with the insults about Harris.
Why shouldn't she have a job?
I get that you don't want her to be president.
And, you know, you might think that she sucks, but she's a qualified lawyer.
She has the ability to have a job.
It's fine to not like her or not want to vote for her, but say that she's unqualified for any job is kind of stupid.
Similarly stupid to be like the president is the top of the pyramid.
It's the same, it's the same exact thing, you know, like you're the people who sew, so the money should be coming to you, blah, You know, it's the exact same thing, repurposed politically.
But it's so silly to see it in a political context because, like, when the rubber hits the road, like, when, you know, you have to deal with reality, what would you like to see happen?
So, Tucker's first point there is about this idea that things should be fair, which is nice, but it falls apart when he gets to the second reason that we can't put up with Trump not being king any longer.
And the second reason you can't allow it is very familiar to anyone who has children, which is if you allow it, you will encourage more of it.
If you allow people to get away with things that are completely over the top and outrageous, if you allow your two-year-old to smear the contents of the world, you're going to make me ruin the wall of your living room.
You are if you allow your 14-year-old to light a joint at the breakfast table, if you allow your hormoned 15-year-old daughter to like slam the door of her bedroom and give you the finger, you're going to get more of it.
And those kids are going to wind up in rehab.
It's not good for you, and it's not good for them.
So I feel like in any ordinary situation, someone would say something like this and it would ruin them.
It's so embarrassing and reveals such a deep-seated internal conflict that Tucker wants to enforce on the rest of us that it's very hard to believe that this is something he meant to say and is on message.
Tucker views the world in a particular way, or at least he's currently pretending to in order to accommodate the only audience he has available to him.
This viewpoint is basically that the country is a household and God's the dad and we're all his children.
There's probably a mom somewhere, but she's not important.
Something that's very reflective of his underlying politics.
Everything has now come down to this firm black versus white, good versus evil dichotomy.
So for the sake of simplicity, let's just imagine that there's two children.
One is represented by Tucker and the folks who he's insisting are supernormal.
And the other is the rest of us, people who support access to reproductive rights, civil rights, and don't think that immigration is a white genocide plot.
As kids, we're going about our lives as we see fit.
And Tucker really thinks that we should be punished for our positions.
His view of what dad's rules say that we should be spanked.
So he's yelling and whining about how we're getting away with all this stuff that dad says that we shouldn't do.
He really wants dad to punish us, so much so that he's helped create a political cult around a guy who he's dressed up like dad so he can show up and punish people, which Tucker can then claim is an act of holy justice.
This has nothing to do with politics.
Tucker is just a super fucked up dude who's acting out on a massive stage, whining about how his metaphorical sibling doesn't follow his imaginary rules.
This is so embarrassing.
And like, we talked about this when I went to the Pennsylvania rally because some of this theme came up.
So this was a part of the speech where it felt like Tucker was getting into it a little too much.
The audience responded to the dad's home line really well, so I think he spent a little more time than he intended to on the spanking and calling us bad little girls.
There's one aspect of that that's just off-putting to hear, but there's so much going on in that moment that the surface-level bizarreness masks some deeper problems.
The first is the way that initially Tucker is getting into it as the crowd is cheering, and he says that dad's home and he's pissed.
He says that because that's the energy that Trump's movement has.
Tucker has already said that they've put up with too much for too long.
The desire to punish is largely motivated by a desire for payback.
But Tucker knows that that's a really ugly face to put forward, so he immediately has to start qualifying how dad is pissed.
It's not about vengeance.
It's a justice thing, blah, blah, blah.
The excitement of saying these things to a cheering crowd got the best of him.
He sort of slipped that he wants a rage-filled dad impersonator to punish us because Tucker would find that validating.
The second thing is that this conception of the relationship between person and government is pathetic.
Tucker and his ilk have spent decades complaining about the nanny state, and now he wants the dad state.
He wants a parental relationship with the state where it spanks you for your own good when you break dad's laws.
We've been over this a little bit in the past because this isn't the first time Tucker has expressed this, but it's definitely the most explicit so far.
In moments like this, it's hard not to see the complete fraud that he is perpetrating and the intense disrespect he has for this audience.
Tucker does not want justice, where the state is the dad and everyone's punished when they break the rules.
Tucker is one of the children in this scenario, but dad's rules are mysteriously exactly how he thinks the world should work.
That's the unspoken detail in this whole thing that he's leaving out.
There is no dad.
There's just someone that Tucker has helped enlist to pretend to be dad in service of handing out punishments based on the rules that Tucker thinks dad has, which are the basis of his ideas of natural order.
This is, without exaggeration, one of the dumbest and most childish things I've ever heard someone on Tucker's level of fame and influence say publicly, to the point where I thought it was a prank.
Yeah, it's fascinating, too, because if you follow his own logic as to how he's to get his natural order, he recognizes something very important, which is that in the natural order that he himself desires, no one will ever treat him with respect because he is not your dad.
So in less than a minute, Tucker said some pretty fucked up things that reveal how his brain works in upsetting ways.
First off, he said that Harris was chosen because she's the right color, which he moved past into misogyny so fast you might not have remembered.
That's insanely fucked up and kind of reveals that he thinks that anyone who could possibly be considered for positions of power who aren't white don't really deserve that consideration.
Then he starts complaining about Tim Waltz, who's apparently a weak man.
I'm not sure exactly what this is based on, but if we just follow the train of thought, this is the Democratic ticket because Harris is an unhappy woman who's the right color and Walls is a weak man.
This leads into Tucker expounding on how Democrats are weak men and unhappy women and one creates the other.
If you're a weak man, which is not very specifically defined here, you'll make the women around you unhappy because secretly there's nothing a woman likes more than a man who doesn't respect her as a person.
These are the thoughts of a very normal person on stage, reassuring this audience that they are the normal ones.
Well, I think that having the belief is not necessarily the problem.
It's imposing that belief into public spaces.
And I think that you could have a number of people who have misogynistic personal views who could, in theory, legislate decently if they could be self-aware and not engage in that in terms – I don't know.
It's hypothetical.
Look, the point is, we're coming to the end of this speech.
And I don't think, no matter what they pull two weeks from now, 13 days from now, I don't think they can get away with standing up and being like on MSNBC.
No, actually, Kamala Harris is historically popular, it turns out.
Woman who's never had a job who can't even pronounce her own first name consistently.
That's how false she is.
Some woman who grew up in Montreal, Canada is lecturing me about America.
Okay.
I don't think they can do that because I don't think people are going to sit back and take it.
It's like when your teenage girl becomes a vegetarian, you're like, okay, that's, you know, okay, it's fine.
No, I totally understand.
You're like, it's a phase.
But if that phase goes on for nine years and includes destroying your major cities and allowing your country to be invaded by millions of foreigners whose identities you don't know and whose purpose in this country is unclear, by the way, why shouldn't we feel threatened by that?
If they go out of their way to crush families, to make it impossible for your kids to buy a house, getting involved in the sex lives of your children, which they are, if they do all of that, they need to lose.
And at the end of all of it, when they tell you they've won, no, you can look them straight in the face and say, I'm sorry, dad's home and he's pissed.
So Tucker ended the speech with a build-up to and repetition of the dad's home and he's pissed line, which really should signal that it's one of the important points he's trying to make.
And also, I believe if you're following his train of thought, that's your response if Harris wins the election is no, fuck you, dad's home.
So it feels to me like there are two general theses.
One, the dad's home and he's mad, and that you should feel normal.
Cool.
So there was a part of me that considered not even bothering with covering this speech because there's a bit of it that's clearly some trolling for attention.
I think he was hoping that news outlets would call him a Nazi for the triumph of the human spirit stuff, and I'm sure he knew that people were going to talk about the spanking stuff.
So I would have just left it alone.
But then there was more Tucker news this week, and I couldn't resist folding this all into one together.
I had a direct Experience with it in the milieu of journalism or just in my bed at night and I got attacked while I was asleep with my wife and four dogs in the bed and mauled.
So if it wasn't clear before, it's now super obvious to me that Tucker Carlson is the most interesting and craven person in the entire media sphere.
He's eclipsed any possible competition, and just before the election, a clip begins circulating of him walking in the woods talking to a guy about how he was attacked by a literal demon.
Or at least that's the only conclusion he's decided to accept about this experience that he's had.
This isn't news to us per se.
Alex has said many times on air that Tucker got attacked by a demon, but he always tried to do so in a way that was pretending to protect the fact that Tucker told him this in confidence.
It's been super clear that this was rooted in something that he'd told Alex, but it wasn't clear to me how much of this was lost in translation and how much of it was just Tucker being an opportunist and telling Alex what Alex wants to hear.
Sure.
If I'm to take anything he says in this clip seriously, Tucker Carlson is a lunatic zealot of the highest order.
I reserve that to be a possible conclusion we come to, but I think it's also possible as an explanation for him coming out and discussing this demon attack.
He knows that he's past the event horizon and there's no escaping the black hole that is this brand that he's created for himself.
There's no sense in trying to maintain some air of respectability to the mainstream.
It's just time to peck it in and become the prophet he's been pretending to not want to be.
He's now a religious figure in the same way that Alex is a religious figure and they've made Trump a religious figure.
If anything they say is to be believed, then these dudes, Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, these two shithead right-wing talk show blowhards, require a new book of the Bible to be written.
They're figures on the scale of Paul in terms of their importance to the conception of religious history, and I think it's kind of cowardly of them not to demand a new book.
If you want to play Messiah games, don't give me this half-measure shit.
Do it.
Change the religion.
Anyway, this clip of Tucker was going around, but I didn't see a lot of context to it.
Like many people were making jokes about how it must be a deep fake because there's no way that Tucker would say this kind of shit.
He's such an idiot.
But it is real.
And it's in fact part of a publicity campaign for a new documentary film called Christianities, which explores the idea that there are wholly different Christianities that are forming in the world that share very little overlap with one another.
I think it's a fair premise, and I would agree that there's a difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity in the same way that there's a difference between any religion and its fundamentalist counterpart.
So I have this thin agreement with the premise of the film without having seen it, but there's one thing that isn't really brought up in this clip, which made me curious, which is, who's this guy that Tucker's talking to?
However, if you do watch this trailer, you'll notice that the film is put out by Holy Wisdom Films, which doesn't seem like a very impartial kind of company name for a project like this.
Holy Wisdom Films is a company that was created specifically for the sake of producing this documentary, and it's run by an Orthodox priest, coincidentally named Father Peter Hears.
He's John Hears, the host of the documentary's brother.
I think the idea of someone making a sincere, open-minded documentary about how the definition of what makes someone a Christian is an interesting idea.
It's a subject that has a lot of relevance in the world today, so I don't begrudge the concept, but I think that this particular documentary looks a little shady.
Looks like they're trying to present it as some kind of, you know, open-minded exploration of the subject, but it's actually a thinly veiled piece of fringe extreme right-wing Orthodox theology.
I suspect that because Peter Hears, the producer of the film and the brother of the host, is a major and controversial figure in the Orthodox world.
One of the main selling points of the Orthodox Church is that they claim to follow the traditions rigidly.
There are rules and structures that are followed, and by following them exactly, they claim that they've been able to maintain the same faith from the time of Christ.
Since that's the premise, it's very weird that Father Peter Hears doesn't have a bishop over him, which every other person in his position in the Orthodox Church does.
That's strange and should probably be a deal-breaker for being a leader in the whole tradition-based community.
So he seems a little bit sketchy to me, but I'm not particularly interested in gatekeeping other people's religious hierarchies.
That's their business.
What is important now is that he's the producer of this documentary where Tucker talks to his brother about how he was attacked by demons.
This is in the context of a film that's purporting to be an exploration of what it means to be a Christian.
Incidentally, Peter has maintained a YouTube channel where he's posted videos about the Orthodox Church for at least the past seven years.
And if you watch a couple of these videos, it should be super clear that he would never produce a film that asks the question, what does it mean to be a Christian?
He would produce a film hosted by his brother with a pretty specific answer to that question that he's trying to push.
In fact, both of the brothers have been pretty clear in certain circles that this movie is their attempt to convert people to the Orthodox Church.
unidentified
But you know how some souls have contour?
And if we could smell them, they have a certain smell, they have a certain sound.
We're trying to illuminate the soul of Christ on earth, of Christ's body on earth, and through film.
Now, we can't do it because it's not sacramental in the sense we're not offering it through the church, but we're offering a way to feel and sense that which is real without making it a polemic.
Does that make sense?
You know, people talk about how do you come and convert to Christ, to his body, to become a true Christian, that process is not mainly, although it's not irrational, it's not mainly rational.
In other words, not a rationalistic process.
It's not a two and two is four process, right?
If it's true and it's heartfelt, it's going to be heartfelt.
It's going to be not sentimental, but not logical, but supra logical.
It's going to be intuitive if you want to use that word.
So they'll say stuff like that in an interview with an Orthodox podcaster, but when they release the trailer for the film, it sounds more like this, which doesn't quite sound the same.
unidentified
What is a Christian?
Gaggy Marguerite.
I kind of do this for a living.
My name's John Hears, and this is our restaurant.
And in this restaurant, we throw this Georgian Supra.
It's a dinner, and it elicits all these toasts and ideas and emotions.
And inevitably, the question comes up, what is a Christian?
An evangelist, a missionary, a martyr, a healer, a saint?
What is the church?
A denomination, a building, an invisible body.
What's Christianity?
A religion, a way of life, a revolutionary political movement.
There's a cultural moment happening right now where the old Christianity has died in many people's hearts.
And yet, if you drive around town, you see that it exists.
Why is it so different?
From one place to the next.
What you see is not a single Christianity, but Christianity's.
You see a divided faith divided by politics, by belief, by whatever.
Are you driving by a museum or a social club or something else?
What's inside all those buildings?
Is there something for you there?
Where is God?
And if you knew where he was, would you want to go?
Is there a Christianity that's growing?
Or dare I ask it more true than others?
We're going to interview people from all over the world.
And as we do, I want to go on a journey with you guys and figure it out.
Our goal is to investigate how people through the millennia and right now how they see Christianity.
Let's figure out what's going on with all of these Christianities.
So that trailer might lead you to think that this was a sincere exploration of various forms of Christianity, not the brother of a fringe Orthodox priest pretending to be a neutral truth seeker in order to sell you on Orthodoxy being the only true Christianity.
Do you think they're going to go through this and find like, oh, you know what?
It's such a fraud, which only becomes more clear when you realize that Tucker is being interviewed in this documentary, fully aware of who's making it and why.
You know this because the film was directed by Scooter Downey, a dude who produced and worked for Tucker Carlson's show from 2021 to 2023.
The surface story here is that Tucker's a fucking lunatic who believes he was attacked in the night by a demon, but the actual story is a little bit worse.
Whether he believes it or not, Tucker is allowing this documentary to tell his story of being attacked by a demon as part of the media blitz for their film, which is a disingenuous and manipulative charade of exploring Christianity in service of promoting the Orthodox Church.
But back to the Tucker story.
He was attacked by a demon with claws while he was in bed with four dogs.
These marks that don't get shown in the clip are still there.
Approximately a year and a half later, Tucker used the word mauled, which is pretty severe.
Just based on human biology, if he still has these marks, then it can't have been a superficial cut, which is also supported by this being called a mauling.
This would have to be a really serious attack.
He would have ended up in the hospital for sure after something like this.
Yeah, you know, one thing I think that is at the root of all the conversations happening right now between disinformation researchers and how useless they are.
The conversation that they're not having is the most obvious one, which is that what they are doing is not actually addressing what is being talked about.
They are not dealing with religion.
Because there's no way for them to deal with religion.
I am not, I'm not sure exactly how we get to this place.
And I don't know if the question that you're asking is actually the most important question we need to answer.
I think that, you know, in this sort of old-fashioned understanding of the separation of church and state, I think we can get to a point where we get closer to that.
You know, don't legislate based on your religious shit.
I woke up and I couldn't breathe and I thought I was going to suffocate.
And I walked around outside and I walked in and my wife and dogs had not woken up and they're very light sleepers.
And then I had these terrible pains on my rib cage and on my shoulder.
And I was just in my boxer shorts and I went and flipped on the light in the bathroom and I had four claw marks on either side underneath my arms and on my left shoulder.
If this supposed claw mark and the claw marks that were on his body were bleeding, then they would have to be deep enough cuts to.
He's saying that they're deep enough cuts to still be present 18 months later.
He would have been bleeding so much.
He wouldn't have just had some kind of vague night terror, wander around a little bit and then realize, oh, what's this?
I'm bleeding.
This would be a life-threatening injury.
Or maybe Tucker's a bit of a bullshitter and he wants to impress this Orthodox friend of his to promote his religious propaganda masquerading as a documentary.
Some might suggest that maybe Tucker had a nightmare and maybe one of the four dogs that were in bed with him clawed him at some point and he had a scratch from that, which he's now exaggerating out into this stupid story because he's very aware of how extremely religious his brand has gotten.
This guy who's talking to him is thrilled because he's got Tucker Carlson telling this sensational ass story that's going to help him get the rest of the funding he needs to finish this documentary.
So, one thing that's suspiciously absent from this story, of which Tucker has just said he's leaving nothing out, is him talking to a doctor or getting his mauling wounds tended to.
This story makes no sense at all.
He woke up in pain in the middle of the night, wandered around, and then he saw that he had multiple big claw marks on his body, which were bleeding.
His wife and dogs have now woken up, and there's blood in his bed, but he just decides, oh, well, I guess I'll go back to sleep.
Nothing that he's experiencing seems like an emergency to him, which is nuts.
Despite the severe pain he's in, he apparently has no problem just getting back into bed like nothing happened.
So he wakes up the next morning, by which point you'd assume that he would have bled a shitload more into the bed.
He would be covered in blood.
His wife would be covered in blood.
That bed was the site of a mauling in the night, but Tucker somehow wakes up and thinks to himself, Well, maybe that was a dream.
Despite the situation he must have been in, where he has open wounds all over his torso, is in terrible pain.
His wife has been sleeping in a bloody bed.
His dogs are probably terrified.
He's still able to think the demon part was just a dream.
This is fucking insane.
And at very least, we're implying that this demon has the powers of like ambien and emergency first aid that it's carrying out on him.
So he realizes that a demon attacked him in the night.
And instead of calling a doctor to deal with his very real mauling wounds, Tucker calls his assistant because they're an evangelical Christian who might understand all the demon stuff.
And I don't believe that anyone would act like this.
At least not anyone with the ability to care for their own basic needs.
Like, Tucker knows that when he's hungry, he needs to eat food.
He gets that basic dynamic.
So, I assume that he knows that if he has a big bleeding claw wound, they're going to keep bleeding or get infected if he doesn't get treatment.
You'd think this has all the hallmarks to me of just like a very super embellished story.
Like, I have this cat that sleeps on my bed sometimes.
You might have heard of her, Celine.
Yep.
In the night, sometimes she's scratched me and I've woken up with wounds.
It's less common than when I first got her, but it does still happen sporadically.
And I don't always remember these scratches happening in the night because I'm still half asleep, and I just wake up and I have a cut.
I could see this kind of thing happening to Tucker, and because he's a shithead opportunist who knew that the GOP is rapidly becoming a fundamentalist, esoteric, demon-hunting Christian party, he saw how he could turn this into a story about a demon.
Yeah.
Make some money off this.
I can believe a number of elements of this story have some connection to reality.
But what I cannot believe is that Tucker was attacked by a demon or even that he sincerely thinks that he was attacked by a demon.
Part of the reason that I don't believe that he believes that this story is because it's being told in a gospel church anecdote kind of way, where the elements of the story are meant to prop up the underlying unbelievable premise of the story while not making any sense from a motivation standpoint.
Tucker is supposed to have been a rationalist with no faith tradition that believes in demons attacking you in the night.
And I'm supposed to believe that he didn't respond to the signs of a demon attacking him in the night in the way that a rationalist might.
Like, why did he respond like an evangelical would?
He like he knew that it was spiritual immediately.
He told this guy that.
That doesn't make any sense if he entered the experience with the mindset that he's pretending he had.
But the response sounds good to an evangelical writing a story about an imaginary rationalist version of themselves.
I'm supposed to believe that cynical ass Tucker wakes up in severe pain, wanders around the house, then sees that he's bleeding from multiple claw marks, and his first reaction isn't to check on his kids or his wife.
He doesn't call the police.
His wife might have been stabbed by somebody in the night if he's got blood on him.
It doesn't make sense from a character motivation standpoint.
Further, why didn't the demon kill him?
Can demons only go so far with their cuts, like hurting you enough to give you a fun story, but not enough so you can't go back to sleep?
Did the demons know that Tucker is a media personality, so they kept the attack isolated to parts of his body that are always covered by shirts?
If this is some kind of spiritual war, shouldn't the demons have tried again?
Like, Tucker's supposed to be one of the most dangerous people on his side of the spiritual war, so it kind of implies to me that maybe this is as bad as demons can do.
Like, if they go out of their way to materialize into our reality to attack Tucker Carlson and this is all they've got, I'm not worried about demons.
And it makes me understand better, like when you get that he is, he knows who he's lying to, then it makes more sense whenever you know, like, oh, well, in conversations that aren't around this with other people, he lies to them differently.
It's really fun and cute to say that you don't pretend to understand something, but the reality here is that Tucker is not trying to understand anything.
Tucker clearly isn't saying like, I've considered alternative explanations and the only thing I can not exclude is demons.
But he wants people to think that that's what he's saying because that's the only rational way to say I was attacked in the night by a demon.
If you say like, look, it can't fucking possibly be the case, but here is one alternative explanation.
Here's another.
And the reasons that these can't be the case.
Like you have to say that you recognize that what you're doing is completely irrational, but you've entertained every other possibility.
Tucker wants to be treated like he's that kind of a person because the reality is that he's a lunatic, but he wants to be respected and taken seriously.
So this is the path he's cut.
Just imagine if some Democratic pundit, let's say the most popular Democratic pundit in the world, came out and said that their policy preferences and their support for the presidential candidate they had was predicated on something like, a ghost told me this.
That's about how seriously you should take anything Tucker's saying.
I don't believe this demon bullshit for a second, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with getting into some religious literature.
I'm not going to shit on Tucker for reading the Bible, but I do think that he's kind of stupid and that his oppositional defiance is getting in his own way.
He claims that he just read the Bible and reread it because he wanted to see what was in there.
He didn't want to take someone else's word for it, so he didn't listen to anyone's interpretation.
I get that motivation, you know, to have your own perspective, but for that to work, you have to be smart enough to understand what you're reading.
When I saw him in Reading Pennsylvania, Tucker cited a passage from the Bible about how you know a tree by its fruits.
He thought that meant that a lemon tree makes lemons, so by the fruit produced, you can categorize the tree.
It's actually very clear from the context that knowing a tree by its fruit means that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
It's about the health of the tree being apparent by the fruit it bears.
This is super elementary Jesus stuff, and yet Tucker didn't understand that very basic concept.
So I'm not sure I trust him to read the Bible on his own and reread it and get anything out of it.
I'm honestly not convinced at all that he's read the Bible, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he just memorized some verses that he saw in memes that he doesn't understand.
Like, imagine that Tucker Carlson was a sacrifice to Baal, right?
Now, all these priests are around here.
Let's call them Tucker's Mouth.
Pouring gasoline on this altar to Baal, trying to make it start on fire on its own by, let's say, blasphemy of a highest order, beyond all reckoning, right?
And still, he won't light on fire.
So I have proven that your God is not real, Tucker, because if he was, you'd be on fire.
It's that kind of thing that I hate him for what he represents in terms of just the secular world and the damage that this mentality that he perpetuates does.
But if I were religious, I feel like I would hate him more.
And it was just a transformative experience for me, but I'm not, you know, holding myself out as someone from whom you could get theological advice because I'm sure.
So for someone who really doesn't care if I believe his very true story, Tucker seems pretty insistent on reminding me that the story is real and it doesn't matter if I believe it.
And here's the deal.
I don't believe it.
And there's no part of me that believes that Tucker believes it.
But I also don't care if it happened or not.
I can't imagine anything I care less about.
If Tucker is lying, then literally everything I already believe stays the same.
He's a bullshit artist scamming people with scary stories that they want to hear.
But if Tucker is telling the truth and his interpretation of all this is correct, I'm not interested.
In that case, we live in a world where there are demons who can hurt you a little bit, but not that much, and they waste their time fucking with Tucker Carlson for unclear reasons.
Like, why did they choose to attack him at that point in time?
Seems weird.
I'm not worried about these demons.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this was recorded in October of this year.
And a year and a half ago is when this demon attack, he's saying it happened.
Also happens to be when he was fired from Fox News in the fallout from that Dominion lawsuit where they lost $787.5 million.
Did the demon happen to mention Dominion, you think?
About a year and a half ago from this point, Tucker got fired from Fox News.
And along with that, he lost the last time he would ever be on a major network or work for a legitimate outlet.
He'd spent his previous years on air burning bridges and living high on the hog with his enviable ratings.
But in chasing those ratings, he'd done some shows that got the company sued, and they didn't want to keep him around anymore.
So he got humbled.
He could try to get another TV job, but where?
Any of the other Trump World networks would be a huge downgrade, and going to a place like Daily Wire would be too.
That would be subordinating yourself to like Ben Shapiro.
No good.
Tucker had to strike out on his own, but if he did a Fox News-style show on Twitter or YouTube, who would even care?
The audience that he relied on with Fox wasn't the same audience that would support him in his new digital foray, so they needed to get a little bit looser with standards.
So you can see him start to court other fringe celebrities to boost his cachet, like Alex and Cat Turd.
You saw the messaging begin to drift more and more overtly toward this white identity extreme right-wing Christian perspective.
Basically, Tucker needed to court a new audience once he was fired from Fox, and now that he has it, he's solidifying his place in it basically as a profit.
This dramatic ass story about a demon attack is supposed to be the explanation for why he's doing the shit he's doing now, but wasn't before.
In the real world, it's because Fox paid him a shitload of money and he didn't need to desperately chase this audience, but now he has no choice.
What I'm saying is that all this is just rooted in Tucker not being able to handle being fired from Fox.
That inability to cope is now being retold as a demon attack that Tucker is telling a couple of Orthodox zealots so they can market their conversion movie.
There's a lot going on here beyond just his stupid demon story.
I am no longer bound to the laws of the FCC is not quite as interesting as I am no longer bound to the laws of God and man for I am demon fighter Tucker.
Yeah, and the like the part the you know the ugly truth of his getting fired and the way that all happened is that like that closed the door on him pretty much working anywhere ever again.
Sure.
Like no reputable person or outlet was probably if he got fired from fucking Fox.
I don't either, but I can't imagine like the amount he would ask as a price that he needed to be paid to be working somewhere mixed with how many people he'd probably pissed off during his time on Fox.
While I see where you're coming from, I would still give you two to one odds that within the next 10 years, CNN hires him because their ratings are low and they think it's going to be the next thing that they get their viewers for.
A lot of times when news breaks and Alex has to rush out a video to make it about himself, I feel like it's desperate and it's a sad game he's playing.
But in this case, I feel different.
I expected him to put out a video to get on top of things and associate himself with the story, but I also felt like he deserved to.
This is a situation where Alex making the story about himself is actually him trying to correct the record because Tucker left him out.
In this case, I want to be totally clear.
Tucker fucked Alex.
This is an insane headline-grabbing story where he's claiming he was attacked by a demon.
He 100% owes Alex that story.
He owes Alex an exclusive on that.
And for Alex to have to record a video responding to this clip being posted on Twitter while he's driving around in his car, that tells me he didn't get a heads up that this was going to go live or anything.
And that's just rude of Tucker.
And it's at a point where Alex needs a win.
He needs an exclusive, juicy story to help move traffic over to his new fake website.
So it's fair that Alex hadn't told as many details of the story as we know now, but he's absolutely very obviously implied that Tucker told him he was attacked by a literal demon.
That's why we make jokes about Tucker being attacked by a demon, because we've heard Alex talk about it before.
And just to show him what I was talking about, I said, I think I know what happened to you without him telling me anything else about why it happened, where it came from.
But human level, I do think you probably should have called him before you start talking about his backyard in California and how someone laid hands on him to put a demon in him.
But there's a really good chance that had things gone slightly differently, Tucker would have wanted Alex to tell the poltergeist story, and he might not have told the demon.
All right, there's so much huge news going on that I'm out partying on Halloween night.
In fact, we're shooting this at about 9:20.
We're going to upload this to exit Relox Jones, the incredible stuff I just wrote down about Turk Carlson.
But now that he talks about it, I can tell you the rest of the story tomorrow.
But that said, let me tell you the rest of the story about this.
You see this?
This is the type of knife that I'm into, and it's customized right here in America with 1776 Bestie Ross flag, Devastators, what I named it, with my signature, talk about a story.
It would be interesting to, like eight years ago, you know, ask yourself, do you think there will come a time where Alex is subtly promoting Elon Musk's sperm?
And you probably say no.
Well, I mean, you know, on the eve of an election.
At least now that I've seen us now, I can tell that we've decided to do different things than the things that got us here, which means we definitely won't be in either the same or worse places as the future goes on.
Everybody's changed their, everybody's doing different stuff, right?
And there's a lot more to the story that he came out and told yesterday that he told me, and I didn't get around to calling him yesterday to get permission to tell it.
He never said don't tell people.
Well, J.D. Van said, yeah, I know, I've got the VP.
I'm going to be the VP.
I'm like, really?
That's great.
I didn't say I'm allowed to say that.
He just knew I guess I wouldn't.
So he told me.
But it's like this weird, unwritten thing.
He told me more of it.
And like I said, my wife was right there.
His family was there.
His wife, crew, Lexi, and all those folks.
But I was sitting there by the head of the table with him.
And I just said, he's like, what do you think that's connected to?
And I sat there for a minute.
And I said, did somebody do a ritual or lay their hands on you or somewhere say that they, because I know how this stuff works.
And I wasn't saying Christians were doing it.
And I was picking up because it was demonic.
Did someone ask permission to pray for you or bless you?
But it was in an unorthodox way.
And he went, whoa, hold on a minute.
He came back a few minutes later.
He goes, I haven't told my wife this.
This happened a year ago.
And he told her about the attack, but not, but he just in the last week clicked.
And he said, just days ago, and I was flying back here, this clicked.
I was looking at old photos from a year ago, right before this happened, and that this happened.
And he goes, how the hell did you just say?
And I went, well, let's go further.
What type of room do they bring you?
And he goes, well, they did bring me in a room.
How do you know that?
And I go, well, and I said, and then he told me who it was.
And, you know, you're at somebody's house and they're really nice and you're about to leave.
So Alex didn't say that Tucker was going to get fired thanks to a download from God.
He has a clip with it he plays or he predicts that Tucker won't be at Fox News in the near future, but it's selectively edited to hide the context that he was saying that Tucker was going to quit because he's bigger than Fox.
This is the same manipulation game he plays with pretty much all of his predictions.
If I were just a friend at a bar listening to Alex tell me this story, I would be pretty suspicious that he's telling me a story about a time that he didn't realize that Tucker was fucking with him.
It's almost like Tucker was fishing for details to flesh out his scary demon attack story, and Alex was just riffing about a bunch of stuff that he remembers seeing in horror movies.
And what do you know?
Everything that Alex says is right on the mark.
That's not because Tucker was going to just accept anything that Alex said.
It's because God was giving Alex a download at the time.
Well, there's a part of me that gets the sense that this is something that is pushing the conversation in the direction that Tucker largely and the people in his orbit want the conversation to go in.
Which is there's like this war with demons and supernatural forces and all this shit.
Yeah.
I think that if Tucker had his way, he would not be the person who was attacked by a demon because that's funny.
And all of this stuff is embarrassing and he would rather not be the focal point of this.
I think that when Alex was on his show, he would have preferred that Alex tell the story about being attacked by a poltergeist.
So all of this stuff could be folded into the Alex Jones is the prophet wild man mythos that you have going over here and Tucker could keep himself slightly separated from it.
But Alex didn't come out and tell this story and so Tucker kind of just has to be it himself.
I think that's maybe a little bit of what's going on in the background here.
I think that a better organization of everything has those two roles separate.
Sure.
Like, he's more of a prophet type, someone who's spreading the word or whatever, and maybe has seen some stuff but doesn't, you know, have not been touched by divine or whatever.
Whereas Alex is already, like, everyone already thinks he's crazy.
I agree, but this would not be the first time that an overloaded, egotistical, tiny little boy has decided to do the dumb thing because it makes him feel better.
So I love that Alex is trying to pretend that he never talked about this or that he wasn't very obvious about repeating Tucker's personal story on air, but has to concede that he did tell the story without using Tucker's name just after returning from Tucker's show.
No one could possibly put those two pieces together.
Which, in all honesty, I trust him to remember the specifics of what movies he has seen and when far more than literally anything else he has ever said.
Well, here's the part of it that I have real trouble with.
In the same way that I don't believe that Tucker could possibly be injured to this level and not go to the hospital, not have his wife be terrified, not have.
And if you study that in all cultures, they say the most common thing, in fact, 90 plus percent of it, if you look up a poltergeist, and that's kind of the German term for it, Christians like myself, so that's a demon.
But the point is, a debate broke out on my ex.
Is it a demon?
Is it a poltergeist?
It's not nice.
And it hits and runs, and it mainly targets people going into puberty or adolescence.
And the energy and whatever's coming off of that.
That's why the Satanists and demons that they're working with want kids killed.
And that's why they sacrifice virgins in every ancient culture.
And that's why in poltergeist, it comes after a little girl.
Based on true story out of New York, didn't happen out in Arizona.
Yeah, it would be impressive if I hadn't already claimed to be in control of some spiritual energies myself to the point that one might suspect whether or not I could have put up a defense against a poltergeist.
Observation of reality is affecting it, even though you cannot track with any machine the energy that supposedly is doing that.
But we now know with dark matter theory and all of that, that there is all of this other matter that's even more intense and more energetic than the dimension we're in.
So this is a guy who clearly understands the concepts that he's throwing around, not just using buzzwords in order to sort of justify and make it sound smart that he's talking about demon attacks and poltergeists.
I find it fascinating that people believe that dark matter theory is like a thing instead of just being like, we have no other way to describe matter that does not get touched by light.
Calling it dark matter is the least interesting thing to describe it as.