"What about our society has changed so much that noting that you're watching [the looting] is somehow a thoughtcrime?" asked Carlson.
In the other panel to discuss this with Carlson was Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino. This was one of those segments where both participants are on the same side, batting mostly-rhetorical questions back and forth—questions like the one I just quoted from Carlson.
The segment was decorated with video clips showing the actual looting. So far as I could tell, the looters were all black.
Yet this did not come up. In a 4m37s segment, the word "black" did not occur. Nor did any of the common euphemisms for "black" or "blacks."
Why not? Because, as the late Larry Auster told us, blacks are sacred objects in our state religion. Criticism of them is received as a species of blasphemy.
As I watched these two talking heads blathering on about "nihilism" and "the destruction of objective values," I kept hearing, in my mind's ear, the voice of my old South African colleague cutting through the baloney: "It's the blecks, dear fellow, it's the blecks." That was, in fact, the answer to all the questions they were chewing over so earnestly.
It's a bit depressing to see that even Tucker Carlson, one of the more fearless of our heterodox commentators, believes he has to cleave to convention on this.
Or perhaps, after years in the news business, he's just internalized it and it comes naturally (as apparently it also does to the Secret Service guy).
So here's my question: When a person inside the state religion observes the orthodoxies like this, is he at all aware how deeply weird it looks to us outside?
If you cannot bring yourself to mention, perhaps even to think, obvious true facts, then the world you are living in is to some degree a make-believe world, and you yourself are, to that same degree, slightly nuts.