What On Earth Is Up With Tucker And Megyn?

The video embedded above is YouTuber Brandon Tatum's astonished reaction to Tucker Carlson's disastrous interview witn Lulu Garcia-Navarro of the New York Times, which is entertaining enough, but he also interposes Megyn Kelly's commentary, "Tucker sat down with Lulu, and Tucker handled himself, of course, very, very well. . . . Any sort of would-be trap she was laying, he saw from a mile away." It's as if she saw an entirely different interview from the one everyone else watched.

But that took me back to her "hostage video" that I discussed Thursday, where she explains to captive Mark Halperin about the wonderful new audience of young Muslims that she and Tucker are reaching. Her typical wardrobe, though, isn't exactly Muslim-friendly, so it's hard to imagine what kind of Muslims are tuning in to watch her.

In other words, I'm not sure if she understands much about Islam -- certainly if she wanted to appeal to Muslim sensibilities, she'd at least cover up her arms and shoulders. Robert Spencer has the same sort of questions about Tucker. Does he actually know much about Islam?

Carlson includes a kernel of truth in his lies and deflections, and that makes them all the more insidious. Like Christianity, Islam does indeed teach that “every person has a soul.” But the Qur’an also teaches that non-Muslims are “like cattle, no, they are worse.” (7:179) It says that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6), and calls them “the worst of animals” (8:55).

These aren’t mere words, either. The Qur’an also states: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers, merciful to one another.” (48:29) Ruthless in what way? The Qur’an tells Muslims to “kill them wherever you find them” (2:191, 4:89, 4:91) and, just in case that wasn’t clear enough, adds “kill the idolators wherever you find them” (9:5). This includes pretty much everyone, for in the Qur’anic view, virtually every non-Muslim is an idolater.

Dominic Green in the Washington Examiner provides some insight when he compares Tucker to the Roman historian Tacitus:

Tacitus never saw the Teutonic forests, but in his first-century bestseller Germania, he told Romans that the German tribes who lived there had an “inherent love of liberty” and a rude kind of self-government. The men kept their women “fenced-in and chaste, without seductive display,” and if they caught a woman jumping the fence in adultery, they scourged her in public. They were an honorable and warlike people, and levying interest on loans was “unknown” among them.

Tacitus was an old-school republican orator from an established patrician family that had lost its status. The new, imperial Rome was glitzy, materialistic, hedonistic, and promiscuous. Tacitus rose through the system by playing a game he despised. When he praised the uncivilized Germans, he implicitly damned his over-civilized contemporaries. After writing Germania, he stepped back from public life. Perhaps he despised himself for his complicity in the trashing of republican virtue.

Tucker Carlson was an old-school Republican orator from an established patrician family that lost its status. He rose through the system by playing a game he despised. He now praises Islam in terms closely resembling Tacitus’s praise of the German tribes, and with a similarly thwarted passion. Perhaps he despises himself for his complicity in the trashing of republican virtue, or at least the Republican coalition.

This might explain some part of Tucker, but not everything -- yes, his background is upper-class, even to the point of glaring family dysfunction, but he shows remarkably little self-awareness. Just this past February, Rabbi Michael Barclay went in a different direction at PJ Media discussing Tucker's interview with Mike Huckabee:

Carlson showed what appeared to be signs of either mental distress, a neurological issue, or possible addiction.

Throughout the interview with Huckabee, Tucker suddenly begins laughing nervously. It happens frequently, often at some of the most inappropriate moments. During exchanges about war, death, or even his own personality (he repeatedly calls himself a “jerk”), Tucker breaks into a strained, almost hysterical laugh that feels out of place—arguably even more so than the cackling often associated with Kamala Harris. It seems uncontrolled, inappropriate, and at times extreme. If you watch the entire interview, this happens repeatedly: he suddenly starts laughing and lowers his head, almost as if in embarrassment.

To act like this once or twice would suggest a level of nervousness that is not typically attributed to Tucker Carlson. To repeatedly behave this way could be a symptom of something much, much deeper and more troubling for his own well-being.

. . . More than anything, aside from his obvious anti-Semitism, this interview is a warning sign for Tucker Carlson. I pray that he is evaluated by professionals in both mental health and neurological disorders, and that he also considers speaking with an addiction specialist.

His flat-out denials in the New York Times interview that he said things like Trump could be the Antichrist, when this is clearly contradicted by the evidence on tape, is yet another troubling sign -- as is Megyn Kelly's insistence that he "handled himself, of course, very, very well" in that interview. This is almost beginning to look like a folie à deux -- but what is it they both have to be delusional about? Is it their wonderful new audience of young Muslims, who, if it exists at all in Megyn's case, must be watching only to ogle her shoulders and upper arms?

A typical jury instruction says that if a witness is shown to be lying aboukt one thing, he's lying about everything. If Megyn and Tucker are lying that Tucker never said Trump maybe was the Antichrist, Megyn is lying about their wonderful new audience of young Muslims -- but why would she lie about that? I'm actually wondering if both have much bigger financial problems than we know about.