Oh really? If he’s such a strong anti-imperialist how is he a piece of shit? Maybe explain that instead of just hand waving literally every concern your comrades reply with and calling them libs.

Some of you read the front cover of ‘Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism’ and decided that there’s no material basis for the idea?

No, seriously, let’s have a struggle sesh about this, defend the fash in front of the entire community. If his faux anti-imperialism is good enough for you to throw others under the bus, explain why the rest of us deserve to die

top 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DasRav@hexbear.net 2 points 2 hours ago

Tucker is a piece of shit who happens to be saying non-shitty things right now. Under no circumstances do we have to hand it to him, or like him, or support him. He was the willing lapdog of republicans for years and the only reason he seems to no longer be their darling is, I don't know, right wing vibes not being aligned with each other?

That said, he is critical of the people in power right now, which can serve as a starting point for getting people that like him thinking outside the box, possibly setting them on a better course if you keep chipping away at that disconnect. That is his one and only use in my opinion.

[–] MohammedTheCommunistPalestinian@hexbear.net 2 points 2 hours ago

Damn that's my post

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This post sucks, leave your slapfight in the thread it originated in

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 1 points 36 minutes ago

If people are going to defend a fucking fascist, they should be more vocal.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 hours ago

You're lowkirkenuinely being pathetic now. I will not reply further to this discussion because at this point in time I no longer value your opinion.

You and that other commenter have tried to twist my words into something that I never said. I never said "you have to hand it to him" or any of what you are trying to make it seem I said.

I made a statement, which was a criticism of, what the broader public considers, "the left", and how tucker carlson is more of an anti-imperialist than many of these "progressive" figures in the media because he has been against american military action in Venezuela, Iran, and Palestine, all without promoting liberal zionist ideologies.

He has a more anti-imperialist stance than:

Bernie Sanders ("netanyahu government")
Mamdani (calling maduro a dictator)
AOC ("they're defensive weapons!" ☝️🤓)
Mehdi Hassan (peddled lies about the 40k protestors being massacred in Iran which manufactured consent for the US/"israel" bombing and assassination of the Ayatollah)

What did I say that was incorrect? I never once said "you have to hand it to him" I never once stated "critical support to him". YOU made these up in your head to be upset at someone.

This conversation is not worth having, you are upset at something that doesn't exist. I wish you well.

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Anything that divides the empire against itself is good. Long-term new problems may arise but our most pressing problem is the empire.

"Waaah he's a fascist, he hurts my feelings". Yeah no shit he's not a great guy. Doesn't matter.

I don't like how Iran treats women and how it murdered communists but I still understand the role it has to play.

Iran's role is more significant and important than Tucker Carlson. They're not on the same level. But where do you draw the line? Does someone have to militarily attack the US (and only I will remind you in response to being attacked first. Iran are not some bastion of fanatical anti-imperialists who struck first, they reply only when attacked first and are more than willing to negotiate with the vile US empire when it actually seems like it might do so in good faith)? Iran was forced into the position it's in. It wanted rapprochement with the west and integration but the west spurned it. Tucker Carlson was perhaps forced into the position he's in. He lost his Fox News show and the market for zionist puppets and pro-war maniacs is quite bad for new sellers because of all the big media apparatus already being on that. If he wanted to do anything his range of choices was pretty constrained.

I'm not going to cheer for Tucker unlike Iran but I'm not going to do like the idealist liberals here and cheer for say the FBI or CIA harassing him because they don't like what he's saying because mentally you people despite claiming to be leftists are still Democrats at heart happy to score an "own" against that mean reactionary personality instead of dispassionately analyzing what it does.

It shouldn't matter for us any more than it matters that Russia or Iran were forced into doing good things. So long as we don't delude ourselves (I haven't seen that) that he's a true friend through and through (same with Iran and Russia) and understand what is going on we can point out what he's doing is taking the correct position.

You people act as if the absolutely irrelevant online left praising Tucker with reservations will result in him skyrocketing to popularity and personally becoming fascist leader of America thanks to our help in bamboozling the totally innocent left-leaning American public. Ridiculous. Absurd. 1) He doesn't need us. 2) America is already reactionary and violent as shit. Please see Trump. Whether it's Tucker or someone else doesn't matter. The empire is a machine that will continue regardless of figurehead at the helm.

Calm down and analyze what it does. Have no illusions about who our true friends are but have no illusions that change and the new world will be brought about in no small part thanks to people we rightfully consider enemies. Save your breath, there are plenty of liberals, chuds, and zionists seething at Tucker we need spend no time trying to "take him down". Continue pushing our positions and lines, our explanations, our values. But please save your freaking out at Tucker being a bad guy the same way you save your freaking out at Russia whenever it's mentioned because they oppress LGBTQ people. There are times it is appropriate to bring up and times it is inappropriate to do so and knowing the difference is the difference between being a liberal and a member of the left.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 6 hours ago

Thanks for the effortpost, I appreciate it a lot

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

i think tucker is more likely to advocate regime change in entity than aocia, which tells you something non?

He is not strong anything, just amerikkkan leftists with a voice are complete dogshit in their radicalness.

jon stewart is interviewing jack murder them all sullivan as a comparable figure on the centrist side.

$rtx bernie has founded a new country named netanyahu in the middle east.

obamdani is too busy building pretty jails to have opinions, apparently.

tucker is outflanking them in rhetoric, if by an inch. not that he is better than the-podcast

of course he soft sells empire, he is a company man. he is a chud chotiner, he lands interviews with economist editors or whoever the fuck, it's different sphere of media than leftism as such.

i would like a leftist with profile to eviscerate matt duss, but alas we have hasan vote-them-all-in. i also would like a leftist with a voice to do a read out of "partisan tactics in ww2: historic perspective" with a straight face, but no one will touch anything demonitazeable by the "platforms"

[–] The_hypnic_jerk@hexbear.net 9 points 12 hours ago

Besides the fully ready to drink the flavor aid die hard Maga guys (it's not as many on the right as you think) most of who is supporting this war is a bunch of Israeli and US literal bots on Twitter

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone would should "support" Tucker or "hand it to him" beyond recognizing that he's is outflanking the Dems on Israel. His "anti-imperialism" is nothing more than "don't sign a murder suicide pact with Israel". Basically the Obama "no dumb wars" line. No dumb anti-imperialism.

Judging him on how he's failed to convince his "chudbuds" is pretty silly though. I assume he has convinced his listeners. Those just aren't the ones that matter.

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Judging him on how he's failed to convince his "chudbuds" is pretty silly though.

The point is that he should have some level of influence given he is arguably the most popular conservative talking head in the west, lest this strain of anti-imperialism is completely hollow right wing bullshit meant to dupe people into nazi rhetoric and inevitably keep the war machine burning

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 4 points 8 hours ago

Yeah, it's almost like right wing talking heads don't actually have any principles and only say popular things to garner support and siphon people away from the left or something. But that'd be crazy, Tucker is obviously the one single Principled Right Winger who believes what he says and isn't just a grifter in it for the money and power like the dozens if not hundreds of grifters before him.

[–] MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Joe Kent Michael Flynn, Jackson Hinkle, etc, these people are all obviously taking money from other countries outside the USA to talk nonsense. It's not organic, they often contradict previously held beliefs or give out information that they themselves know is false to deliberately mislead. Michael Flynn does this a lot. A man of his military experience knows that what he's saying is false. Like when he said the NEW START treaty banned hardened aircraft shelters for nuclear capable strategic bombers (it didn't, and he knew that, but he said it anyways to feed a narrative, because he's probably getting paid to do so). Kent went on a tour of the podcast bro scene right after resigning, the opposite of organic. Who's funding them is the bigger question.

If people want to do a red brown alliance with these hacks whom are only loyal to their bank account, that's highly questionable. They're not outflanking anyone, they're just getting paid to say stupid things they themselves know are false, and put out low effort slop. Even more questionable is the rumblings I've heard of some kind of red-brown-green alliance? Yeah that's not going to work and should not be supported.

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 6 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

An odd claim. Why does the US allow this?

The country with near total insight to global money flows. Hundreds of people working on sanctions. Whole redundant investigative divisions dedicated to sanctions enforcement and tracing money. And with all this they can't figure out these people are being paid off by Russia, China, Iran, whoever the unfriendly actor is who wants to sew discord against the US?

They can tunnel down and figure out how complex, intelligent, staffed criminal organizations and countries are shifting money about and you're telling me a few small time right-wing grifters have outsmarted them?

This is kind of a curious thing. I want to say ridiculous but it seems the US must be complicit in this and looking the other way. If they wanted to nail these people they could but they're not even trying. I mean they've sent the FBI to raid the houses of minor RT writers in the past trying to prove they were being paid to say these things. At least with RT writers you could say oh they know what their employer wants without anyone saying anything. But these people are not as far as I'm aware on the payroll even in a contributor per piece freelance way for any major media outlets from enemy powers.

This sounds like so much Russia-gate nonsense to me to be honest. The type of lie the CIA pushes to discredit anyone domestic against them.

I think its more likely since you offer zero proof, that they simply saw a niche and went for it. The mainstream has being pro-zionist and drooling over war covered quite well. There's not much air to breathe in there for small fries like these. So I find it far more plausible they just found an empty space.

[–] MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Because Trump is an idiot and had these people in his circle. Anna Paulina Luna is the most obvious foreign asset of all time, yet nothing has happened to her, and nothing will. Trump's big ally in Europe is Obran, who's compromised, about to lose an election by a big margin, and Trump still backs him and has even sent Vance over to back him some more. Tulsi Gabbard has to be put out to pasture/Hawaii beach every time the US plans anything with regards to foreign policy because she's so unreliable. Yes the US is looking the other way, because they've allowed these imbeciles to gain power and influence. The only guys that face pushback by the Feds are people like Jackson Hinkle because of their pretend left wing views and trips to Yemen.

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Again this just sounds like liberal histrionics about Russia, Russia, Russia. Trump connection this, Mueller that.

Trump is corrupt but he's not an asset. People around him are probably just corrupt weirdos who love this "trad" image Russia is selling and are happy to take free plane tickets, meals, etc to go there and schmooze on someone else's dime while Putin and the Russians try desperately to parlay this into something good. BUT it still hasn't done jack shit for helping Russia in the war against Ukraine, in re-opening trade with Europe, etc so they're running up against a very hard wall in the limits of what good will free dinners, hotels, and hookers will give them when the subjects are just influencers at the end of the day. Former NYC mayor got done for some very minor corruption with an ALLY of the US and all the evidence we've ever seen says exactly one "nation" on earth is allowed to do that kind of stuff within the US and that's the zionist entity which is just an extension of the US anyways.

It is just fantastically reaching conspiracy thinking I'm sorry but it is. And it has its roots in liberal Russia-gate fearmongering which is pushed by western intelligence to justify crackdowns, increased budgets, narrative control of online spaces, etc, etc.

Reactionary grifters have been saying all kinds of things for DECADES. Rush Limbaugh back in the 90s called cops or highway patrol "jackbooted thugs" in one of his diatribes. Why? It sells. It needs nothing more than that and without solid evidence it's just more nat-sec birthed conspiracy brain that needs to be buried because spreading it only serves the imperial spy machine's narrative of infiltration and wolves in the fold that enables them to push through sweeping crackdowns and crushing of alternative opinions and frame it as merely "combating foreign influence" and get the public nodding along because "it is known".

So even if it were true and I want to be clear I don't think it is, it wouldn't serve us to go in with the CIA/FBI/nat-sec-state on that line. Tucker is on Trump's shit-list now anyways. They won't be able to convict him of anything but if he was guilty they would be able to easily and have no reason not to now.

[–] MohammedTheCommunistPalestinian@hexbear.net 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This sounds like so much Russia-gate nonsense to me to be honest. The type of lie the CIA pushes to discredit anyone domestic against them.

I agree (russiagate is nonsense)

but the thing is about Tucker is that he has views that mirror Russia on a lot of things

The "I don't hate Islam but immigrants in Europe bad" shtick notably

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 2 points 2 hours ago

There are not that many flavors of reactionary. What Russia tries to use for soft power influence peddling itself as a "trad" defender of traditional values, the family, against the gays, etc is a strain of thought that originated in the west more than Russia which was we must recall the USSR from 1917 to 1990.

These are simply the suppressed nativist conservatives who were shoved out of the way in favor of neo-cons and their agenda in the 90s and 2000s. And they're trying to reassert themselves against very powerfully funded imperialists whose thinking has made weapons companies a lot of money and whose thinking has captivated the higher echelons of the intelligence and state apparatus. They at least on the surface care more about too many brown people in the US than someone not bowing to the US 22,000 miles away. These people are true believers in the culture war or at least using the appearance of that to attempt to gain power.

[–] dead@hexbear.net 9 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Tucker is not a strong anti-imperialist, he only says such things because he knows that it will make him popular. Tucker Carlson's dad, Dick Carlson, was the president of Voice of America from 1986 to 1991, which is US-government-owned propaganda news station ie CIA. Tucker Carlson is a fed or tied to feds.

When Kanye West came out as a Nazi, he went on Tucker Carlson's show to make the announcement. Tucker Carlson selectively edited the interview to launder Kanye's image, so that it would appear that Kanye was a more reasonable populist right wing figure. Clips of the interview were leaked by editors. Kanye claimed that Tucker censored him and then he went on Alex Jones to say even more antisemitic things. This interaction demonstrates that Tucker was comfortable with promoting a figure who claimed to be a Nazi.

The role of Tucker Carlson is to say things that are popular to promote far-right figures and far-right ideas.

Tucker Carlson's Fox News Show focused on 'the great replacement' conspiracy theory. Tucker used the term 'legacy americans' to describe white people and regularly implied that a shadowy group was using mass migration to eliminate 'legacy americans' ie white people.

The danger of Tucker Carlson is not that he's actually anti-imperialist. The danger is that he's popular and his popularity will allow him to promote his white supremacy narratives.

Only a fool would honestly believe that Tucker is actually an anti-imperialist. Just go watch one episode of his twitter show. Every episode he says things like "trans people are trying to stop you from having free healthcare". It is absurd.

[–] hyperpoopsucks@hexbear.net 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah lmao he is incredibly opportunist and just sees an opening. We are talking about the guy who wore a bow tie on TV to spread hype for war on Iraq lmao.

[–] UmbraVivi@hexbear.net 7 points 13 hours ago

The only reason Tucker is able to do what he does right now is because he has access to all these establishment ghouls and they seem to not be expecting the hostile interviews. If you put Sam Seder in front of Ted Cruz, he'd be able to make him look like a clown as well.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Who is saying this? Is this actually a thing?

Edit: did not see the link lmao

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

No they're trying to twist my words into something I never said. I said tucker outflanks most of what is considered "the left" in America because he doesn't promote liberal zionist ideologies and him and another guy tried to dunk on me for it.

Then instead of admitting they were putting words in my mouth this guy tried to double down by making an entirely separate post about it.

[–] MohammedTheCommunistPalestinian@hexbear.net 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

No they're trying to twist my words into something I never said. I said tucker outflanks most of what is considered "the left" in America because he doesn't promote liberal zionist ideologies and him and another guy tried to dunk on me for it.

I didn't dunk on you though (if you meant me)

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

Wack

(I always believe what I have most recently heard and will look no further into this)

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Linked the thread above. Yesterday, Chapo was handing it to him. I’ve seen the sentiment everywhere on leftist online spaces

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 5 points 13 hours ago

Western leftists are very easily rattled, a profound weakness of the breed

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 4 points 12 hours ago

Being able to compartmentalize the positions people have on things (instead of treating them with a halo effect), and analyze whether or not something is well-integrated with a holistic liberatory philosophy, is a skill that we all need.

[–] Biddles@hexbear.net 1 points 11 hours ago

Critical support to Tucker Carlson 🫡