Tucker Carlson Refuses to Denounce Candace Owens and Defends Darryl Cooper's World War II Analysis
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Brandon Tatum Responds to Mark Dice's DEI Hire Accusation and Defends Support for Turning Point USA
17:49
Bill O'Reilly Confronts History's Most Evil Tyrants and Reveals How Their Legacy Threatens America Today
41:54
Massive AI Data Centers Across America Signal Dystopian Surveillance State Plans, Not Competition With China
10:35
Tucker Carlson Refuses to Denounce Candace Owens and Defends Darryl Cooper's World War II Analysis
Tucker Carlson pushes back against a British interviewer who demands he distance himself from Candace Owens and criticizes his platform given to historian Darryl Cooper. Carlson defends the American tradition of questioning government narratives and refusing ritual denunciations, arguing that seeking truth matters more than appeasing critics. The conversation escalates into a heated debate about World War II, Winston Churchill's alliance with Stalin, and whether Western nations truly won the war given their current state. Carlson maintains his position that sending weapons to Stalin was morally indefensible, regardless of the fight against Hitler, and questions why honest historical reassessment is met with accusations of Holocaust denial.
During a tense exchange with British interviewer Harry, Tucker Carlson was asked about Candace Owens and her commentary surrounding a controversial case involving the death of someone named Charlie. The interviewer suggested that Owens had been "putting out some pretty wacko stuff" and questioned whether Carlson should distance himself from her theories about darker forces and potential government cover-ups.
Carlson immediately recognized the setup. "So am I going to attack Candace Owens because you think—" he began, before the interviewer interrupted to clarify he wasn't asking for an attack. Carlson's response was direct: "I'm not going to do that, Harry."
He then explained his position on what he sees as a political ritual: "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt as a foreigner of not understanding our politics. But the whole ritual of, you know, this person said something I don't like, in order to be a good person you must denounce this person—obviously I'm never going to, I would die before I played along with that."
The Pursuit of Truth Over Compliance
Carlson emphasized that he doesn't recognize anyone's moral authority to compel such denunciations. He pivoted the conversation to a broader principle: "I would say broadly, not about Candace, whom I love, but about all people, getting to the truth is the most important thing. I've devoted my life to it. I haven't always done a very good job at all, but it still remains to this day my animating motive. I want to know what the truth is."
He challenged the premise that citizens should simply accept government statements without question: "If you're telling me that because the US government or some law enforcement agency issues a statement that doesn't even make sense, that I'm required somehow morally to accept that and not ask any questions—like, can you hear yourself? I mean, what are you saying?"
Questioning Government Narratives
The interviewer attempted to clarify that he was simply trying to understand Carlson's position, given that a legal process was underway with someone potentially facing the death penalty. Carlson pushed back, noting that the defendant hadn't even entered a plea yet and questioning the basic facts of the case.
When the interviewer suggested that conspiracy theories were "spectacularly unhelpful" to achieving justice, Carlson asked pointedly: "Unhelpful to whom?"
He then delivered a sharp critique of British versus American traditions: "In my country, we have a long tradition of freedom, and that means that every person is allowed to come to his own conclusions based on the facts and consistent with his own conscience. Our Bill of Rights, unlike yours, guarantees that right. That's why we don't send people to prison for Facebook posts."
Carlson continued: "If the government issues a description of what they say happened and it doesn't make sense to you, I'm not sure who it's quote 'unhelpful' to, to ask, like, what does this mean? What are you saying? Why is that unhelpful? Are you saying that the government always reaches the right conclusion?"
The Presumption of Innocence
When the interviewer expressed concern about risks to the trial and potentially giving the defendant ammunition to suggest the case against him was flawed, Carlson identified a fundamental problem with the framing: "But you're assuming he's guilty. Like, that's not our system. We don't pronounce people guilty without hearing the evidence. I don't know what country you're from. That's not how it works here."
He explained the American justice system: "We don't put anybody to death unless we're sure they actually did it. And we're sure they did it because we've heard all the evidence, we've heard the counterargument against that evidence, and then citizens make up their mind. So that's our system. That's how we arrive at justice. We don't just assume because we heard three things on Twitter that someone is guilty and deserves the death penalty."
Carlson added his personal assessment while maintaining the principle: "It looks like this guy did it. From everything I've heard, it sounds like he did it. I don't know. I still don't understand the story. And I think that's fair to say. It's not unhelpful to say that. It's just true. And by the way, it's never unhelpful to tell the truth. The whole mandate in life, especially our business, is just tell the truth."
The Darryl Cooper Controversy
The conversation then shifted to Carlson's interview with Darryl Cooper, with the interviewer bringing up Carlson's past criticism of Pat Buchanan for "needling Jewish people" and suggesting hypocrisy given Carlson's platform for Cooper, who made controversial statements about Winston Churchill and World War II.
Carlson defended Cooper's character: "Darryl Cooper's like actually kind of liberal and very moderate. I thought that episode was really interesting and I really like Darryl Cooper enormously as a person. And I think he's an honest person. I don't know if he's right about everything, but he seems motivated by a desire to find out what's true."
When the interviewer stated that Cooper called Churchill "the chief villain of the Second World War," Carlson responded: "No. Okay, look, I'll tell you what I think, which is anytime you are sending money and munitions to Joseph Stalin, who was the greatest mass murderer in the history of Europe, killed more Christians than any person in history, more than Nero, then you're on the wrong path."
The Stalin Alliance Debate
Carlson made his position clear: "How about this? Don't send weapons to Joseph Stalin. It's not an endorsement of Hitler. I loathe Hitler. I'm not pro-Hitler. Hitler's disgusting. But I don't think that any government should ever send weapons to Joseph Stalin. Like, that's just not hard. And we did. And your government did enthusiastically. And it's very shameful that you did that."
He continued: "Why is that—you're not allowed to say that? I don't understand why is that. I'm not a Holocaust denier. I'm not anti-Semitic. I just don't think you should send weapons to Joseph Stalin because he murdered tens of millions of people."
The interviewer pointed out that this logic would make Stalin, not Churchill, the chief villain besides Hitler. Carlson reminded him of historical facts: "Let me remind you of your own history. Who facilitated those weapons transfers? It was Winston Churchill. It was your prime minister who convinced our president that we needed to support Joseph Stalin."
He expressed moral disgust at the alliance: "I find it disgusting to arm some atheist monster who's murdering Christians, murdering priests like wholesale, blowing up churches. No, I don't think so. I'm not for that. And no amount of screaming by Ben Shapiro is going to make me for that. I hate Hitler, obviously. Let me say it again: I'm very anti-Hitler."
Questioning the Victor's Narrative
Carlson then posed a provocative question about the outcomes of World War II: "Look at your country now. It's pathetic. Like, how is that a win? As I said to Piers the other day, I was like, 'How did you guys win?' You go to Japan—Japan has problems, but Japan is a wonderful, functional, beautiful, clean country. Your country's not clean. Neither's mine."
He emphasized the importance of order: "Cleanliness is really important. If your cities are dirty, you know you've gone way off the rails. And by the way, the Victorians would never have—they believed, they understood that order was the first thing God created out of chaos. And that is a virtue just by itself. Order is a virtue."
Carlson described the state of London: "You walk through London—parts of London are wonderful. Parts of London are just absolutely filthy. They're like New York or Philadelphia. Like, that's not acceptable. And why not just say that? And why is it the victor countries that are the worst? Like, what was that?"
Refusing to Be Silenced
Carlson concluded by rejecting attempts to shut down historical questioning: "Someone who can't reassess that without screaming 'Holocaust denier'—it has nothing to do with Jews. It's literally nothing to do with Jews. I'm just like, what is that? Shut up. Well, I'm not going to shut up because I haven't said anything wrong. Everything I've said is reasonable and you know it's reasonable."
He ended with a final challenge: "So why the attempt to police reasonable observations? Like, what? Why?"
