Since OD is a "junk-drawer" blog for stuff that doesn't totally fit the more developed theorizing of ARCHETYPAL ARCHIVE, here's a "thought-in-development" post spawned by my current watching of the controversial interview between Tucker Carlson and Hitler-fan Nick Fuentes.
________
I'm about halfway through the Carlson-Fuentes interview. I see an additional reason Shapiro didn't like Tucker putting Fuentes out there; according to Fuentes he had a history with Shapiro going back to when Fuentes was just an up and coming Trump conservative, still in college. Though it doesn't sound like Fuentes was ever employed by Daily Wire, he formed various acquaintances there. But Fuentes got cancelled for his antipathy toward Israel, possibly by Shapiro himself, and for a brief time lost a podcast show because of DW cancellation.
Now, Fuentes could be lying as to how "reasonable" he was in questioning the US alliance to Israel. His questions, as HE HIMSELF represents them, sound extremely naive. Of course the US gives Israel money, and for the same reason they give money to the Saudis: dollar diplomacy, as a way to hold influence over a fractious nation. I can only assume, given Fuentes' insistence that the US "gets nothing" out of the connection to Israel, that he'd be in favor of dropping all connection with Israel. To Shapiro this could only be heresy, and deserving of cancellation, ASSUMING that Fuentes said nothing more than he claimed to have said. It's worth noting that Carlson has also butted heads with Shapiro over the whole "Israel is the bulwark of democracy" theme, and that, far more than "normalizing" Fuentes' idiotic racism, may be the main reason Carlson gave Fuentes an interview, DESPITE Fuentes having also insulted Carlson previous to the interview.
Of course it's possible that Shapiro might be 99% correct in all of his defenses of Israel, contrary to both the "America First" Right and the "America Last" Left, but in my view he would still not be right to cancel Fuentes. Yes, don't give him a job if you don't like his politics, but if you try to make him lose a job, then you're as corrupt as the Mad Lib Progressives.
I'm now at the point where Carlson is working his way toward mitigating Fuentes' "White people first" views. More on that later.
PART 2--
So my verdict is that yes, Carlson did play down his opposition to Fuentes because of their fundamental agreement on opposing "Christian Zionists" who supported Israel's right to exist. Fuentes and Carlson may have very different reasons for that conviction, but yes, Carlson's idea of pushback against Fuentes' real racism was just to make very general comments about the wrongness of imputing racial guilt to any people. Since Carlson didn't challenge any particular Fuentes statement, Fuentes just let Carlson ramble on until they got back to what Fuentes wanted to talk about.
Nothing Carlson did, however, counts as "normalization." I don't know if Ben Shapiro started that whole thing but it sounds very much like a Mad Lib talking point: "we can't allow this speech because it's RACIST." Shapiro would have better off doing as Dave Rubin did, keeping the objections on a purely moral level and not indulging in "If This Is Allowed to Go On" nonsense, because such rhetoric empowers the Corrupt Lefties, giving them talking points about a fragmented Right. Rubin disassembled much better than Shapiro did, highlighting Carlson's statement that he "hated Christian Zionists" worse than anyone, which would include all sorts of Jihadists and Communists who have been making many more people in the world miserable.
PART 3-- During a televised conversation between Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro this week (following a convo between Kelly and Tucker Carlson the previous day), Ben Shapiro made the claim that another Con broadcaster, Candace Owens, had claimed that Erika Kirk was somehow complicit in her husband's death. Kelly was aghast at the time, but the next day came back on her show and stated that Owens had said nothing of the kind. The New York Post agreed with Owens in calling Shapiro a liar, and the Post hypothesized that Shapiro had over-invested in a narrative about Owens from another broadcaster, Stephen Crowder. As of 11-13 Shapiro has not produced evidence of his claim. Of course Owens is no stranger to rash claims, either, having recently claimed, with no evidence, that the Federal government had faked the messages Tyler Robinson sent to his trans lover.
Additionally, to the "Christian Zionist" thing, I still think Carlson has over-invested in this narrative, but Kelly spoke to him and he admitted that he did not really mean his hyperbolic hatred for the Zionists.















































