This isn’t MAGA. This is Marxism.
Every day that goes back the actual ideological difference between Barack Obama and Tucker Carlson seems to shrivel away. And I don’t just say that because both men have a habit of bowing to wealthy Muslim sugar daddies in the Gulf region.
Take this latest argument from the ‘Tucker Carlson Network’ and its newsletter.
What are the chances Iran would actually launch a nuclear attack? History suggests they’re zero, no matter what Senator Graham says. No country in the so-called “Axis of Evil” has ever deployed a nuke, because doing so would be an act of suicide. In fact, the United States is the only nation to unleash its nuclear might as an act of war. It’s strange how Washington considers that a point of pride.
Could the Iranians obtaining The Bomb wind up being a good thing? Whether anyone in the foreign policy establishment admits it, North Korea’s nuclearization has undeniably stabilized the Korean Peninsula. The region has seen no wars, coups, or interventionist-forced regime changes since 2006.
Would Iran becoming a nuclear power have the same effect on its region? Could it finally prompt America to leave the area alone, and incentivize Israel to drop its stated goal of controlling the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Would it make the Iranian government less oppressive because it wouldn’t have to worry about the West’s constant decapitation ambitions?
This makes perfect sense if you’re operating from the Obama perspective that all the problems abroad are actually caused by America.
Barack Obama started his negotiations with Iran from the same perspective as Tucker’s, telling his negotiators to be very understanding of the trauma that Iran suffered at the hands of America, and trying to limit America’s international power.
Adopt that same flipped perspective in which America is a global threat “it’s strange how Washington considers that a point of pride” and its possession of nukes is a problem, then the Iranians, the North Koreans and anyone else getting a bomb is a good thing because we’re the problem.
We and Israel and anyone else who doesn’t bow to Mecca.
The good news is that we already have the New York Times and Noam Chomsky to introduce us to exciting views like these. The bad news is that Tucker Carlson is peddling their leftovers to MAGA while trying to make it seem like he’s taking on some evil forces of ‘warmongers’ and ‘neocons’ when he just sounds like a slightly younger Bernie Sanders.
What this isn’t, is MAGA. Non-interventionism is very different than believing, as Obama did and Tucker does, that America is a force for evil in the world and that if the folks who chant ‘Death to America’ and call us the ‘Great Satan’ get nukes, it’s a good thing because we really are the ‘Great Satan’ and they’ll be able to prevent us from attacking them.
This isn’t MAGA. This is Marxism.
The real problem isn’t Tucker’s ideas, it’s that he’s completely dishonest about them. He trots out UN officials to bash America, but doesn’t disclose who they are, he tries to defend Maduro by falsely claiming that he’s socially conservative because he knows his audience hates Marxism. Does Tucker hate Marxism? The old Tucker at least claimed to. The new one sounds like a Marxist.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Is Tucker actually, finally saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was historically shameful? B’cos that would be the final faultline b/w him and most conservatives, be it Buckley, Prager, Limbaugh, Hanson…. While most people agree that it was tragic that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be vaporized, w/ many living on to have radiation-induced abnormalities, they also agree that they were necessary to prevent a greater bloodbath that would have ensued had the US had to engage in a land invasion of Japan
I also wonder what sort of a shell he is living in these days, when it comes to events in Iran? Don’t listen to Lindsay Graham or Ted Cruz. Don’t even read or listen to JNS. Instead, open up Iran International, and check out the news there, from Iranians. Or talk to Iranian exiles who’d deign to talk to him, such as Armin Navabi or Mahyar Tousi. Or if he doesn’t like their pro-Israel stances, maybe just to some Iranian exile who has nothing to do w/ Israel or the US, but is just talking about Iran
If I were him, I’d have just cooled my heels and gone completely silent on Iran, waiting to see how it plays out. B’cos, at the end of the day, if Pahlavi returns to power, it’s the Ted Cruzes and the Lindsay Grahams who’d be vindicated, while Tucker would feel even more embarrassed than he was when he discovered the Iraqi opposition to the US presence in that country. And if he lost a lot of followers after coming out against Israel, he’ll lose even more after being proven to be a dunce when it comes to Iran
Wellington says
Fine post, Infidel. Not quite sure what has happened to Tucker Carlson—kind of a mystery unless a money trail is involved.
John Smith says
Agreed Wellington, an excellent post from Infidel.
DV says
According to Classic and Always Operative Just War Doctrine, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified, but many people continue to employ the immoral “justification” that the ends justify the means, and they could care less about killing innocent lives in the process, though some will say such is “unfortunate.” Others will demonize the innocents as part of those “dirty Japanese,” and try to justify the bombings that way as well.
Primary bogus rationale: such atomic bombings may have saved more lives than continuing a war, but that begs the question about using other legitimate means, ongoing negotiations, and so on. Of course, for those who employ such a rationale for directly murdering the innocent, if murdering even 1 person can possibly prevent the murder of 5 others, such murder is always accepted because, as always for them, desirable ends justify the use of immoral means.
Now watch how any person who defends the morally bankrupt principle will attack what I have written and yours truly for pointing out how desirable ends cannot justify immoral means no matter how desirable, wonderful, good, etc., the ends may be. And also expect the typical denial: “what we did was not immoral because directly killing the innocents involved had to be done to accomplish a good end.”
By the bye for those with a little more on the ball: Note how the rationalization for the use of the atomic bombs and other kinds of bombing where innocents are directly killed (not simply collateral damage from a morally legitimate attack on a legitimate target) is very similar to the rationalization used by many to try to justify the immoral killing of innocent children in the womb (abortion) in order to provide a “good end” for the mother.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Dear, this was towards the end of WWII, when there were no negotiations b/w Japan and the Allies. Had there been a land invasion, thousands of more people – both Allies and your “dirty Japs” – would have died. When there is a war – and this was the last declared war by the US – then all options are on the table. Like I said, it was tragic for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the alternative was neither peace nor an end to the bloodletting
Puddleglum says
I concur.
My grandfather, who was proudly USN and saw some pretty horrific action in the Pacific theater, felt likewise. Post-war, he actually settled in Japan for a time, overseeing various reconstruction efforts for the population. These he often talked about with us grandkids…other things that he bore witness to, not so much.
It *is* (and remains) possible do harbor both a deep-seated love for a people alongside a blinding ideological cliff that their government is threatening to pull you over along with them.
War is hell.
DV says
Thanks for not letting me down with your rationalization disguised as morality.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I said nothing about morality. I just said that the alternative wasn’t peace, as you suggested. It’s indeed horrible that all those people in those 2 cities died
Puddleglum says
You badly underestimate the ferocity, bravery, and loyalty (albeit ultimately misguided) of the Imperial Japanese army of that time.
DV says
And the rationalization continues in the ongoing immoral “desirable ends justify immoral means.” Bravo.
nicholas william tesdorf says
Tucker Carlson either suddenly went nuts or received a huge amount of funding money from a secret source.
LibertyORdeath says
If North Korea is “stabilized,” I don’t want to see what instability means to Tucker.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Yeah. The only thing that has happened is that South Korea had a number of leaders who actually have a romantic affinity towards re-unification. What they don’t realize is that the resultant unified country will be a North Korea, not a South Korea. Chairman Kim will run the entire country
This is the same man who was tough on North Korea during the Otto Warmbier saga, and at the time, said nothing about how Kim was stabilizing the Korean peninsula
James Lincoln says
The most likely explanation for Tucker Carlson’s recent behavior is that he’s been bought off.
And in the not-so-distant past, I didn’t think that Tucker Carlson could be bought off.
John Smith says
That sounds about right to me James, I can’t think of a better explanation.
James Lincoln says
Thanks for your reply, John.
OLD GUY says
Being bought off is no surprise in todays America, One only has to look at out political leaders? or higher education institutions, corporations and last but not least the media. Foreign actors and governments have “invested” in our country because they love us so much and want to help spread our life style and values around the world. Or they are investing and invading our country from within. Just look at Minnesota with the so called Somalia refugees and what they have done to that state.
somehistory says
Iran has directly threatened America and Israel. They have sent operatives to assassinate people of both nations
If the ghouls of iran had nuclear bombs, they would send those too, as the don’t fear death while murdering others. The leaders don’t want to die, but they see themselves as surviving whatever they start.
carlson and bo….both evil idiots. One is muzzie and the other sounds like one..