Tucker Carlson has begun a speaking tour in Australia. The events are already generating viral moments. Carlson’s “replacement” theory was the subject of a particularly heated exchange. The reporter suggested that Carlson felt “white people were being replaced” by illegal immigrants.
Carlson’s turnaround was only a matter of seconds.
REPORTER: You’ve spoken a bit about immigration and you’ve in the past talked about how non-white immigrants are replacing white Australians and Americans in what is known as the “great replacement theory”.
CARLSON: Did I say that whites had been replaced by blacks?
REPORTER: Well…
CARLSON: No, I don’t believe I said that.
REPORTER: It’s been on your show 4,000 times and…
CARLSON: When did I say it? When did I say that whites were being replaced?
REPORTER: You’ve said it before. Yeah.
CARLSON: Really? You’d have to prove that I said it because I am pretty sure that I did not. I said that native-born Americans, including blacks, are being replaced.
REPORTER: Native-born Americans?
CARLSON: I’m not a racist. My concern is that Native Americans, Americans of color, African Americans, and other Americans who have lived in the United States for 400 years are as valid as those of whites whose families also have lived there for 400 years. I have never claimed that whites were being replaced. You can’t even cite this.
REPORTER: That’s not true, I think.
CARLSON: Our relationship started with a lie. It’s hard to be friends.
REPORTER: Well, you’ve been lying about (inaudible)…
CARLSON: I’m sorry, but you can’t quote me because I never said it.
This is how I deal with dishonest journalists. Simply put, you should never accept their claims. When we talk about modern reporters, it’s often about trust-fund children. They are lazy and see their job as creating headlines rather than reporting the news. They are lazy and will often base their allegations on what they read on social media, without verifying the information themselves.
Does this reporter watch thousands of episodes to know that the “white” replacement was mentioned “4,000 times?” She hasn’t. She was simply repeating a false stereotype. Carlson might have taken a defensive stance and tried to defend her arguments. He pulled her under the rug, asking her to show where he had ever claimed that “white people” were being replaced. She was left unable to speak and stammering.
He had already won in the first minute. But he wasn’t finished. The reporter, after explaining his real position, then went back to the “replacement hypothesis” and claimed that it had inspired mass shooters.
CARLSON: I won’t answer your question if you continue to lie.
REPORTER: This is the same idea or theory that inspired the New York Buffalo Shooting where 11 black Americans and two white Americans died.
CARLSON: Oh my God… You know what I mean…
REPORTER: It also inspired the worst. It also inspired the worst, one of Australia’s worst gunmen of all time
CARLSON: What makes people so stupid? It’s not a very lucrative job. I’m sorry. I’ve known people like you too long. I don’t want to make you look stupid. Maybe you’re only pretending. But I have never been against violence. I am totally against wars in Ukraine and elsewhere, as you doubtless support. And like all liberals, I support more violence. I don’t. I’m not a fan of mass shootings.
What does it mean that nothing I have said has inspired something? My views do not discriminate against any particular group. They are honest and factual. This is not hatred. My views are based on my concern for Americans.
A reporter asked sarcastically if Carlson supports “gun control” because he opposes violence. This went as expected. It was an excellent lesson in how to deal with a dishonest journalist. Do not accept their flawed premises and ask them to explain their inconsistencies. This is usually enough to make their minds spin. Then, if they get angry and begin to lash out like this reporter, you can embarrass them even more.
