Tucker reacts to unclassified government UFO report

close

Video

Tucker reacts to unclassified government UFO report

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' says Pentagon has covered up UFO information

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," June 25, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. Happy Friday.

Human beings have been wondering about unexplained lights in the night sky since the first Neanderthal cooked an ocelot over a campfire and looked up, but in our age, in the modern age, fascination with UFOs really began in the summer of 1947, that's when a man called Mack Brazel found something very weird on his ranch in Corona, New Mexico -- that's about 85 miles northwest of Roswell.

Suspecting it might be debris from outer space, Brazel dutifully brought the pieces to a nearby military base. The next day, the base issued a press release confirming that the material was in fact from a flying disk, a flying saucer.

News agencies around the world announced the shocking find, "Flying saucers."

Then, within hours the U.S. military changed its assessment of what these pieces were. Brigadier General Roger Ramey, Commander of the 8th Air Force announced that in fact the debris from outside Roswell was nothing more than a weather balloon, not a big deal, nothing extraordinary. Certainly, nothing extraterrestrial.

Was General Ramey telling the truth about that? Well, it looks like he may have been. It may in fact have been a weather balloon, but that was not the end of the story.

Over the past 75 years, the U.S. military has gathered evidence on a remarkable number of puzzling aerial phenomena, most of which were definitely not weather balloons. Unexplained flying objects have buzzed U.S. military bases, missile sites, ships, aircrafts, and submarines under water -- often at speeds and in directions that seem to defy any known human technology.

The Pentagon has said next to nothing about any of this in public; instead, it has consistently covered up these sightings. Virtually everything we know about UFOs has come from whistleblowers.

By the time this show launched nearly five years ago, it was clear there was definitely something very odd going on in the skies above us. UFOs were not some crackpot theory cooked up on late night radio, they were absolutely real.

The question was: what are they exactly?

Over the years, several powerful political figures in Washington including Senator Harry Reid have pushed the U.S. military to reveal all it knows about UFOs, but in every case, they have failed to dislodge that information.

Then last year, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida inserted a demand for transparency into a Federal Appropriations Bill. By the end of June 2021, the government was required to turn over its full assessment of UFOs.

Just a few hours ago that report finally came out, late on a Friday.

We've only seen the public version so far, but here's what we can tell you. Government investigators seem sincerely baffled by what these things are. Today's report analyzed 144 separate sightings of UFOs by the U.S. military, but in only a single case could the government explain what it was. In that case, it was a large deflating balloon. The rest, the other 143 remain a complete and total mystery.

So, the most sophisticated military in the world has no idea what these things are or even how they move from place to place. Some of these aircraft the report says, quote: "Appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly or move at considerable speed all without discernible means of propulsion."

So, we do know that no government in the world possesses anything like this. No technology like this exists that we know of. The Pentagon seems fairly certain these are not Russian and they're not Chinese. So, what are they? The report doesn't say. It notes only the obvious. UFOs, quote, " ... clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security," end quote.

Well for more on what that means, we go tonight to the single most informed source that we're aware of on this topic, Lue Elizondo ran The Pentagon UFO Task Force. He joins us tonight.

Lue, thanks so much for coming on.

LUE ELIZONDO, FORMER PENTAGON OFFICIAL: Tucker, always my pleasure.

CARLSON: So, first, what do you take from this? What have we learned?

ELIZONDO: Well this is certainly a historic moment for us, for our country, and I think for our military, our Intelligence community. The government has formally and officially come out and informed Congress that these things are A, they're real; and two, that they're not ours, and that they seem to be performing -- at least some of them -- as you say, in remarkable ways.

And I'll tell you something else that I find very interesting. You mentioned that out of the 144 cases, we only were able to solve one, but there's two sub notes to that, and the first one is, when you look at this report very carefully, you'll notice that really the reporting only began in around the March 2019 time era when the Navy established its reporting requirements and then later on in November 2020, maybe about eight months ago with the Air Force.

So, we have 144 reports really concentrating in just the last year and a half involving only military equities, and then the report further stipulates that a large majority of reporting really goes unreported. Why? Because of stigma and taboo, which is something that you and I are both very familiar with involving this topic.

So, one can surmise that there's actually a lot more than just 144 incidents involving the Navy in just the last year and a half, let alone as you say, since the late 1940s.

CARLSON: So, the report all but says what is obvious to anyone who thinks about this, which is these are not from a foreign military and maybe the lackadaisical approach or the disorganized approach on the part of the military to looking into this suggests that, too.

If we thought these were Chinese, you know, we'd be on it. And so, we don't think they're Chinese, they're not Chinese and they're not Russian, so they're extraterrestrial. I mean what's the other -- I mean, let's just it. What's the other explanation?

ELIZONDO: You know, Tucker, that's a fantastic question because as we've said before when I was in ATIP, this is something that could involve outer space, inner space, or frankly the space in between and that's why we've always said let's keep all options on the table.

The more we learn about Quantum Physics and this remarkable universe we live in, the more we realize that our current understanding of the construct of the cosmos is constantly changing, it is constantly evolving with new information and new knowledge that we get.

I think from this report's perspective, if you notice the very first line in the report, this is a preliminary report which is indicative of the fact that hopefully, there will be other reports forthcoming. In the report, they stipulate that we need a lot more effort going into this, this needs to really be -- as we've been saying -- a whole of government approach, not just the military, not just the Intelligence community, but as we see here, F.A.A., perhaps NASA, Department of Homeland Security. We could even go for example, the academic and scientific communities like the National Science Foundation and maybe establish something that looks something like a like a Federal lab construct where we can really get the best and brightest to really look at this this incredible enigma we're now facing.

CARLSON: Well, yes, and it's a testament to how incurious our leaders are that we haven't done that like decades ago.

But back to my previous question, is there, in your view without speculating as to, I guess, what these might be, let's just take off the table what we're pretty sure they're not. I mean, they can't be human, can they? And if they are, I mean, if these were human, which humans would be doing this?

ELIZONDO: Yes, it's looking increasingly like this is probably not the case, but the question is what is it? And of course, people jump to speculation from the Pleiades or something like that, when in fact one of the hypothesis when I was in ATIP was that this could be as natural to Earth as we are, we're just not at a point where technologically we're advanced enough where we can begin to actually collect information on it and begin to try to figure out what it is.

There has been other hypothesis that these things are possibly from underwater and as outlandish as it may seem, these are -- there is some anecdotal evidence that supports, you know, all of these observations.

So again, what we want to do is try to get as much data on the table as we can before we start eliminating what something -- that something is --

CARLSON: Of course, but let me just rephrase it, without getting into all the theories -- you know, if it's not human, then it is something -- I don't know. I have no idea.

ELIZONDO: Sure.

CARLSON: But I'm just fixated on the idea that given the data we now have, it doesn't seem like this be human. Have you heard -- or from a human source -- have you heard anybody offer up a plausible explanation for how human beings could be responsible for these sightings?

ELIZONDO: No, and I'll share with you even a little bit more insight. When I've had my private communications with some of my former colleagues and some people that are still in Washington, D.C., the conversation that these being non-human vehicles and controlled vehicles, but still intelligently controlled by something or someone is certainly not off the table.'

These are conversations that are absolutely occurring, but again, because as the report stipulates, because of stigma and taboo, no one is having this conversation really publicly yet. In fact, if you read, I think it's probably towards the end of the report they say that our airmen still don't even want to have this conversation with colleagues because they fear retribution and that's part of the problem having this conversation.

CARLSON: Yes, this is becoming a country where no one can say anything that's obvious and saying the obvious is a prerequisite for thinking and for advancement and so I'm just so glad that you do. You're one of the few. Lue Elizondo, thank you for leading the way on this.

ELIZONDO: Tucker, always my privilege. Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: Thanks.

Well, you might remember Kristen Clarke. She is the out of the closet racist race hater -- documented -- who now somehow is running the D.O.J.'s Civil Rights Division because everything is irony. So, what is she up to?

Well, today the D.O.J. filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia. The reason: Georgia passed a law to limit voter fraud and limiting voter fraud in the view of Kristen Clarke is needless to say, racist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN CLARKE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: And in this case, our careful assessment of the facts and the law demonstrates that Georgia's recent voting rights law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Our complaint challenges several provisions of S.B. 202 on the grounds that they were adopted with the intent to deny or abridge black citizens' equal access to the political process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, there it is, the race is unleashed. They call you a racist when they want you to obey. Will Georgia obey?

Well, Chris Carr is the Attorney General of Georgia. He joins us tonight.

Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate your coming on. So, how exactly is your attempt, the State of Georgia's attempt to limit voter fraud, which is real, racist?

CHRIS CARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA: Well, it's not, Tucker, and thanks for having me.

Let's be clear. This isn't a lawsuit. This is a campaign flyer.

The Department of Justice is playing politics. They're not upholding the rule of law.

And this blatantly political lawsuit is legally, factually, and constitutionally wrong. Anybody who looks at our law can see that it improves security, it improves access, it improves transparency in Georgia's law and that's why it's going to be upheld.

CARLSON: So, what is their claim exactly? How -- I mean as far as I know, African-Americans in Georgia and in the rest of the country vote as a higher percentage of population than almost any group. So how -- and you know, great -- but how is your law according to Kristen Clarke, the bigot running the Civil Rights Division, disproportionately affecting black voters? I honestly don't get the argument.

CARR: Well, you're going to have to ask the Justice Department that because that's the claim that they're making, and again they're wrong and this is the eighth lawsuit now, Tucker, that we have. There are seven other lawsuits filed by others like Fair Fight and others.

They make the same types of claims and I would just remind everybody, we've beaten Stacey Abrams in court every time she's filed a legal action against us since 2018, and this is again, it's a blatantly political lawsuit and I'd remind everybody, the Attorney General, when he got into office said he was going to de-politicize the department.

And then he comes out of the chute with this, a blatantly political lawsuit that is not based on fact.

And I'll tell you, I think the American people should be very, very concerned that this Justice Department -- and I'm going to quote what Governor Brian Kemp said, "The weaponization of the Department of Justice should bother everybody." It has now been weaponized by a group of political activists who don't like what our state has done.

Today, it may be Georgia, but tomorrow, it could be anybody, and that should bother anyone, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, or conservatives. It's a problem.

CARLSON: Well, I would say they're not just activists, they're extremists. And Merrick Garland has this kind of Joe Biden thing going for him, which is that he looks moderate and seems sensible, and he is a friendly guy. And you meet a lot of people, "Oh, I know Merrick Garland. Good guy." And then you listen to the text of what he said, you realize, this guy is an extremist. He is a radical attacking people on the base of their skin color as Attorney General. Really? Since when is that allowed?

So, can they force you to change the law in Georgia or no?

CARR: Absolutely, not, Tucker, because it's constitutional. It's legal.

You look at what our bill does, again, it improves security. And look, go back to 2018, Democrats complained about long lines, they complained about voting machines, they complained about local Boards not doing their job. Republicans complained about the same thing in 2020.

S.B. 202 simply addresses those concerns: improved access, improved security, improved transparency that helps everyone -- Republican and Democrat alike, because right now there is a crisis of confidence in our electoral system.

CARLSON: Yes.

CARR: But this bill simply addresses those and provides a stronger system for everybody in the State of Georgia, and it will be --

CARLSON: Paper ballots in person. Yes. That's really the only answer.

I appreciate it. Mr. Attorney General, thanks for coming on tonight.

CARR: Tucker, thanks for having me and go Hawks.

CARLSON: Well, for the first time in history, biological men are going to compete in this summer's Olympic Games as women. How do you think they'll do?

Well, two biological women have some thoughts on that, athletes who have seen opportunities for themselves and other women in sports disappear because of this trend. They join us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: A biological man will compete in the women's weightlifting event in the upcoming Tokyo Olympics. That's never happened before for obvious reasons.

In fact, the Olympic Committee has spent a lot of time and a lot of money making certain that only men compete in the men's events and women compete in the women's events.

Not anymore.

We know this well in this country because in America, this has been happening for years. A new documentary by the Independent Women's Forum highlights the story of two biological women who have had to face this. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CYNTHIA MONTELEONE, WORLD MASTERS TRACK ATHLETE: I had the opportunity to compete at the World Championships in Malaga, Spain in 2018. They had put in so much hard work for this meet, as did my team mates for Team U.S.A.

When I got to the meet, I discovered that a biological male was in my race.

Not only has this happened to me, but a year later, my daughter ran her first high school race against a biological male identifying as a female.

MARGARET MONTELEONE, TRACK ATHLETE: It was my first ever high school track meet in my freshman year, and I ended up taking second in my race next to this biological male and I would have won my first ever high school track meet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Margaret Monteleone is a 10th grade track athlete; Cynthia Monteleone is a world Masters Track, track athlete. The two of them join us tonight. Thank you so much for coming on tonight. I appreciate it.

So Margaret Reese on the left --

C. MONTELEONE: Mahalo. Aloha.

CARLSON: Aloha. Thank you. I should say you're from Hawaii. Tell us and go in any order you'd like, why you're doing this? You're publicly saying things that most people don't feel they can say in public, but you are. Why?

C. MONTELEONE: Well, we really appreciate you giving us the time and the opportunity to use our voice because most mainstream media outlets are actually not telling stories like ours. They are censoring our stories and then they're coming out and saying that this is not really happening.

So, we're here to speak up and say that this is happening, it happened to me and it happened to my daughter, and this is a very dangerous issue. Not only can it be physically dangerous for girls in some sports, but it's dangerous to the whole concept of women's sports.

Basically this means the end of women's sports if this keeps happening.

CARLSON: Yes, if not the end of women. I mean, I don't know why, but I think we're challenging the category itself like, what is a woman? Well, it is, you know, whatever you say it is, I guess.

C. MONTELEONE: Well, yes and we know from science that even after -- let me be clear, even after hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgery, male-bodied athletes still have an advantage over female athletes, and you know frankly we don't need science to tell us. It's commonsense and instinct.

And I really feel for the girls I coach when they are psychologically distraught having to line up against a biological male in their race. I have compassion for all athletes including these females that are being displaced.

CARLSON: Yes, yes, I agree with you. So both if you would, give us a sense of what -- of how profound the advantage is? It's not a small thing, is it?

C. MONTELEONE: No, it really isn't a small thing. These changes start in the womb, so contrary to belief that it's something that comes on in puberty, this is not right.

These muscle mass changes, smaller hip structure, bone density -- all of these start happening in the womb and no magic wand can erase these things and that's why we must speak up.

We are really thankful to iwf.org, Independent Women's Forum for telling our story and for you for sharing our story. They have a petition that people can sign because you know, true champions don't place value on the opinions of others and we are speaking up to encourage others to speak up as well because we need fairness in women's sports. We need equal opportunity for women in sports, and these advantages are erasing those opportunities.

CARLSON: You don't get fairness, you don't get equal opportunity without courage. You don't get anything without courage, you get controlled and bossed around.

So if your intent -- so tell me, if you're in 10th grade and you're coming on a TV show to say something that's true, but unfashionable, which this is, what kind of reaction do you get?

M. MONTELEONE: I've received mostly support from my fellow athletes and teammates especially on my track team because girls like me have had to race against these athletes. Other mainstream media might try to shut us up or tell us to not share our message, but I believe I'm standing up for what I believe in and I'm fighting for a fair playing field in women's sports.

CARLSON: Yes, you'd think you'd be a hero, like the 10th grader who tells the truth. You know what I mean? Like you would be someone the country would celebrate and I think at some point you may be. How do your teachers react?

M. MONTELEONE: My teachers have mostly been in favor with me because they understand that as a young female athlete that I'm in a position where I can get so far with what I do. I could get scholarships, but these biological male athletes could be taking this away from me, and could be taking this away from so many other girls and taking away so many opportunities, and erasing women's sports, basically.

CARLSON: Well, that's right and erasing women and I'm so heartened to hear that you haven't been attacked by your teachers and some have been supportive because we tell girls, you know, you have a voice, you should use it even if NBC News doesn't like it.

So, I'm grateful that you're doing that. I'm grateful to you both for coming on tonight. Thank you so much for your courage.

C. MONTELEONE: Mahalo. Aloha.

M. MONTELEONE: Thank you.

CARLSON: In six months, the Biden administration has completely politicized the leadership of the U.S. military. Most people who serve in the military just want to defend the country, a country they love, but the people who run the military are literally lecturing the nation with Biden administration talking points, using racial slurs in the middle of a congressional hearing. It's disgraceful.

One decorated combat veteran would like to change that. He is running for the Senate. He tells us his view, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: According to the recent U.S. census, there are more than 60 million Hispanics in the United States, and like a lot of other Americans, some have concerns about the coronavirus vaccine and have decided not to take it.

There is not one specific reason for this, every person has his own individual reason for choosing not to get vaccinated. They don't need it, don't want it, it's your body it is your choice.

But Joe Biden sees all Hispanics as a monolith, one group, as resilient as the same as in Argentine, as the same as someone for Oaxaca. All the same.

And he knows why Hispanics aren't getting vaccinated. You won't believe the reason.

Why are people with Hispanic last names -- again, it doesn't matter whether you're from Spain or Bolivia, you're not getting vaccinated because you're here illegally and you're afraid of getting deported. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is awful hard as well to get Latinx vaccinated as well, why? They are worried that they will be vaccinated and deported.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: What? There are two things going on here. One, just because you're Hispanic doesn't mean you're here illegally. By the way, the Biden people wouldn't deport you if you were, but most Hispanics are just like, Americans who happen to have Spanish sounding last names. They are not illegal aliens, A.

B, they are not called Latinx, whatever that is. Virtually nobody who identifies as Hispanic calls him or herself Latinx. Like none. In fact, according to Pew Research, 76 percent of Hispanic Americans have never even heard the term, Latinx before and only three percent use it. Why? Because it is essentially a slur.

Spanish is a gendered language that matches a very gendered patriarchal culture. That's a very specific culture that is deeply offensive to the white liberals, like Joe Biden who invented the term "Latinx" to take the gender out of it.

It's an attack on a culture. It is not just patronizing, it is hostile and the people it is aimed it don't like it, so why don't you just stop it, please?

Well, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff overseas the entire U.S. military. It's a big job, a lot of weapons. The fate of the nation resting on his shoulders.

In the case of the Joe Biden administration, and by the way the Trump administration, same guy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a man called Mark Milley.

At a hearing this week, Milley explained that he is deeply concerned about something, not the threat from China, not the state of readiness among the troops. No, no, no. He is concerned about "white rage." He didn't explain what that is, but he said it's a huge problem, "white rage." Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I do think it's important, actually, for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read, and the United States Military Academy is a university and it is important that we train and we understand -- and I want to understand white rage and I'm white and I want to understand it.

So, what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and tried to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out.

I want to maintain an open mind here, and I do want to analyze it. It's important that we understand that because our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians, they come from the American people, so it is important that the leaders now and in the future do understand it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, let's be really clear. White rage is not a medical condition. It's not even a legitimate academic theory. It doesn't exist.

White rage is a racial attack, it's an attack against people on the basis of their skin color. So, here you have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a congressional hearing leveling a race attack against American citizens. The guy who is supposed to be protecting our country. That is disgraceful, it's disqualifying. It is without precedent. When was the last time that happened?

And not only is it okay to complain about it, it ought to be mandatory. We shouldn't have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who attacks Americans based on their skin color, it's disgusting.

Sean Parnell served in Afghanistan. He is a decorated combat veteran. He is now running for the United States Senate from Pennsylvania. He joins us tonight.

Sean Parnell, thanks so much for coming on. So there is this feeling even among Republicans that if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff comes out in a hearing and all of a sudden starts attacking people because of their skin color, you're just supposed to ignore it because he is a General and you're not, shut up.

Do you think we should ignore this?

SEAN PARNELL (R), PENNSYLVANIA SENATE CANDIDATE: Yes. No. No. If you were looking for a way to destroy the United States military from the inside out without firing a shot, talk about what he is talking about and implement critical race theory.

It's a disaster. It's dangerous. It makes it harder to accomplish the mission and ultimately, I think it will cost lives on the battlefield.

I was blessed to lead an infantry platoon on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We were probably the most diverse unit that you could possibly imagine. Northerners serving next to southerners, black next to white, Christians next to atheists, next to Jews, rich next to poor, young versus old and yes, Democrats next to Republicans, right?

CARLSON: Right.

PARNELL: We didn't focus on our many differences. There were no hyphenated Americans with us in Afghanistan, and what we realized our secret weapon was, it wasn't the sexy guns and equipment that we had, it was the love and brotherhood that we had for one another that allowed us to defeat the enemy at every single turn.

Tucker, critical race theory undermines all of that. It's a disaster.

When men and women raise the right hand to serve this country, they do so because they believe that America is an exceptional nation worth defending. Critical race theory undermines that because it teaches America -- it teaches people that America is fundamentally bad, it is evil. Its systems need to be reinvented because at their core, well, they're racist.

That, Tucker, is a national security threat.

And what truly bothers me is the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff should be focused on an exit strategy in Afghanistan, we have been in Afghanistan for 20 years -- over half of my life, and instead he is reading Lenin, Marx, studying critical race theory -- how about we -- how about we get an exit strategy in Afghanistan? How about we focus on bringing our men and women home and taking care of them when they come home?

Because, Tucker, if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs does not recognize the threat, the caustic nature of critical race theory and the threat that it poses to our military, then I think that he should consider resigning.

CARLSON: Well, I couldn't agree with you more and I love your point that our military is successful because it's cohesive. People who are in a lot of ways different are united in a mission as Americans and when you fray those bonds, when you force people to focus on what divides them, you're a less effective fighting force.

I mean, since you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. Why wouldn't he know that?

PARNELL: Yes, critical race theory is a threat because it divides people into little groups and it undermines trust in the battlefield and if there's no trust on the battlefield, when the bullets start cracking by your head, I mean there's hesitation -- that hesitation leads to death on the battlefield, right?

Soldiers need to be able to come together, look past their many differences. In fact, that's part of the training. So, critical race theory needs to go away. In fact, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle need to act. We should ban critical race theory from the military yesterday.

CARLSON: Amen. Really quick. Looking from the outside in, the U.S. military seems like by far the least racist institution in American life and has been for many decades.

PARNELL: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Yes, right? That's the way it seems, in a great way.

PARNELL: It's absolutely true. We've got -- we have been a colorblind culture in the United States military for almost 200 years. We've gotten a lot of things right. Keep your politics and your social experiments out of our military and let us focus on what we were always intended to do: protecting the United States of America and winning wars.

CARLSON: Yes, Sean Parnell, so nicely put. Thanks for coming on tonight. Good luck in your race.

PARNELL: Thanks, sir. You've got it.

CARLSON: Well, the evidence of the revolution around us is everywhere, erasing history, renaming schools, tearing down statues. What is going on here?

Well, they're trying to build utopia. That's actually what it is. We had a fascinating conversation with Angela Nagle, who is a historian and a pretty deep thinker about that question. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: The difference between the modern left and the modern right, if you're being totally honest about it, is the modern left is a little bit deeper. They don't just attack policies, they attack history, they tear down statues, and they rename schools. They try and change the national memory. They make people disavow their own ancestors. Why do they do that?

Angela Nagle is a figure on the left. She has looked into that question. You can find her work on "Substack." We talked to her at length for the latest episode of "Tucker Carlson Today." Here's her central insight.

What they're trying to do is bring about utopia. What happens then? Here's part of the conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANGELA NAGLE, AUTHOR: I mean, it sounds sort of like catastrophic, to put it this way, but if this utopian project falls at some point, they didn't change the flags, right, they didn't change the name of the country. They did that in the Soviet Union and they didn't do it here, but it is still a utopian project. It is still a social experiment in a totally new set of modern values, which is much more hell-bent on removing every single remnant of the past, of the old society.

And if this -- you know, the only thing holding this together is consumer society in a way, right, and if that fails, if there's some economic catastrophe or something like that, what of the old society will remain? Will too much time have passed? Will the destruction have been too complete? Or will it re-emerge?

I mean, it hard to say.

CARLSON: So, it used to be that the United States, you know, for a hundred years been fundamentally a consumer society, but it also was undergirded by the founding documents and the civil society they gave birth to.

NAGLE: But it wasn't a consumer society in the way that -- the Cold War meant that there was basically a blank check for science, right, and you know any amount of money on like nuclear project or space projects or whatever was given to -- and so as a result, there was this massive technological advancement.

And the capability -- and remember also, America emerged from World War II as the -- you know, the industrial society with the least damage on you know, to its productive capacities, which is why it became a superpower and you know, so that consumerism on that scale had really never been seen in the world before.

I mean people bought things, people traded things, but consumerism on the scale that became normal in in that Cold War period, you know was unique in human history.

CARLSON: So, has any utopian project ever succeeded that you're aware of?

NAGLE: Well, this is the only one that still stands, so we will have to see.

CARLSON: Where do you think this is going?

NAGLE: I mean, do think that -- you know, I think that the case that I was making that consumerism is the thing holding a lot of this together, I think that if that fails, the fact that the current government have in peacetime done the spending that they have is actually kind of unheard of.

And so, I think on some level, they understand that economics is the -- that when you remove everything else, when you do not allow a society to have any -- hold anything sacred, have any moral values, have any traditions, then you have kind of gutted the whole basis of society, the framework for meaning in life, and all you have is economics.

So, the economics can't be allowed to fail, and so they are just going to keep pumping money at this thing until -- for as long as they possibly can.

In terms of what happens to the left, I don't really see any hope there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Angela Nagle was on the left for a long, long time and then she woke up one morning and realized, wait a second, they don't care about people at the bottom. All of a sudden, they're promoting sex work and open borders. How does that actually help people?

She said quite a transformation. The full conversation at "Tucker Carlson Today." It's on foxnation.com.

How is this for Orwellian? The power company in Texas is changing customers' thermostats without telling them and without their permission. Remember those smart thermostats? They're smarter than you want them to be, it turns out.'

We'll tell you more after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Remember, they told you get that new smart thermostat? It's going to be more efficient. Like almost everything that's more efficient, in exchange for the efficiency, you lose autonomy. You can no longer make even basic decisions about your life.

Your efficient car tracks your whereabouts. They can turn it off, actually, if they want to.

Now we're learning -- to continue the theme -- that in Texas, the power companies have automatically raised the temperature of people's thermostats in the middle of a heatwave without their permission. Woo. That's not creepy or anything.

Chuck DeVore is Vice President of Texas Public Policy Foundation. He joins us tonight to explain. Chuck, great to see you. So, I remember when these thermostats were being rolled out and we were told no, no, you're still in charge -- because it's your house, right, you pay the bill for the electricity and you decide what the temperature is, it's just for efficiency.

But now it turns out, they're in control.

CHUCK DEVORE, VICE PRESIDENT, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION: Well, they are in control, Tucker, and it's only going to get worse. What's happening in Texas is that they have now seen what Californians have been dealing with for years. And what they do is they entice you with a bit of a rebate or perhaps slightly lower electricity rates, and until it happens the first time, you don't really stop to think, "Oh, you mean when I come home after picking up the kids at school, the house might be boiling hot. Oh, is that the decision I made? Maybe I didn't want to do that."

But here's the problem. The more wind and solar that you put on the grid, the more that this is going to happen, the more the cost differentials are going to expand and eventually, Tucker, it's going to be mandatory first in places like California. They're going to make you put in these smart thermostats.

CARLSON: But I mean, Texas has, I guess, supposedly Republican Governor, two Republican senators, and enough energy to be its own country kind of forever. There's a lot of energy in Texas. Why don't they just make more electricity? That seems like an obvious answer.

DEVORE: Yes, you're absolutely right, but here's the challenge. Over the last few years, we've added about 31,000 megawatts of wind and solar, mostly wind, and we've subtracted about 4,000 megawatts of reliable coal and natural gas.

Now, why is that? It's because the Federal government very heavily subsidizes wind and solar. There's a modest state subsidy for wind, and that's supposed to now lapse in 2022 in Texas. But because of these huge subsidies, the wind power companies can afford to pay the grid to take their power. That happens in one-third of the contracts in Texas, which has a free market system.

And as a result, investors don't want to build new natural gas plants in Texas. You only see wind and solar being built. And the more that happens, as you see in California where it's mostly solar and not wind, the more you're going to need these smart thermostats and Tucker, smart meters.

And the scary thing about the smart meters is that they can do real-time pricing. And if you want to you know cool your house down to 78 degrees, you're going to have to pay an arm and a leg for it.

What we have here is his self-righteous coastal elites imposing their version of systemic environmentalism on working class Americans. You know, the elites of course can afford it. They can afford it, they can pay whatever they want to for their power.

And by the way, they like the cheap power at night because that's when they charge up their Tesla's, so this is the future and I'm afraid that Texans have recently experienced it.

CARLSON: It's amazing, but not surprising. Chuck DeVore, great to see you tonight. Thanks so much.

DEVORE: Thank you

CARLSON: That's it for us tonight.

And for the week, a new episode of "Tucker Carlson Today" came out on FOX Nation earlier. You can watch it on that website. It's worth it.

We'll see you back here Monday night, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. Jesse Watters in tonight at 9:00 p.m., our friend. That'll be a great show.

Have a great weekend with the ones you love. We'll see you Monday.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.