Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Sigh. Tucker Bashes Biden For The Two Things He’s Doing Right: Iran And Yemen

Foreign Policy, Iran, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, The Establishment, Uncategorized, War

Tucker Carlson does splendid work from his mainstream perch, but because of his philosophical limitations and many blind-spots—the kind that had him join the neoconerie in killing Iraq, in the first place; the kind that saw him laud the murder of Iranian major general Qassim Soleimani; the kind that has him bash The South; and call on Canadian truckers to prove a negative, namely, that they aren’t racists; the kind that whined, whined, whined non-stop about Harvey Weinstein, in effect talking-up the MeToo fraud—he stumbles all the time. All the time. Without fail.

Thus did I urge ideological caution on a good friend who got carried away in giving too much street cred to Tucker, and, by extension, enthusing about a Tucker-endorsed Iranian warmonger, Sohrab Ahmari, who has reinvented himself and now peddles retread banalities (or stuff the Old Right—myself included—had espoused decades ago). At best, Ahmari, this ex-agitator for war in Iran, is an unoriginal second hander.

Today (4/12/022), Tucker played a piss-poor satirical skit—just plain bad—of Biden and Harris  being lampooned in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis, explained Tucker, are angry with the awful Biden Administration over Iran and the war in Yemen. I imagine Biden is perceived by the Saudis—and ConOink—to be insufficiently belligerent about destroying Iran, a longtime mission the Saudis share with the neocons. As is Biden considered to be unhelpful to the Saudis in his impetus (albeit weak) to end Saudi Arabia’s protracted war on an impoverished Yemen.

Both these Biden positions, as limp as they are, are better than the positions adopted by ConInc and, yes, Trump. The Saudi war on Yemen is a scandal.

Likewise the unchanging agitation against Iran.

MORE CONTEXT on regional Sunni-Shia squabbles: “Lies About Putin, Syria & The Alawite Alliance

UPDATED (3/23/022): Tucker Carlson’s Producers Rewarding Retread Reformed Neocon Tools Like Sohrab Ahmari

Argument, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Media, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, War

On the one hand, Tucker Carlson and his oft-worthy guests make the case that America’s catastrophic institutional rot (MY EXTENSIVELY DEVELOPED TERM, no theirs) is a consequence of there being no adverse consequences attached to being dead-wrong all the time.

On the other hand, the show has a tendency to reward reformed neocons such as newcomer Sohrab Ahmari, who peddles retread banalities (or stuff the Old Right—myself included—had espoused decades ago, and from the get-go, in the case of the Globe and Mail commentary below: September 19, 2002).

Rewarding conveniently reformed, politically pleasing mediocrities makes the practitioner part of the institutional rot.

PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!” (Ilana Mercer, May 29, 2004) spoke to this repulsive specter:

So why are insightful commentators whose observations have predictive power generally barred from the national discourse, while false neoconservative prophets are called back for encores?

I got to thinking about the neoconservative talking twits. They’ve been wrong all along about the invasion of Iraq. They’ve consistently dished out dollops of ahistoric, unintuitive, and reckless verbiage. Yet they’ve retained their status as philosopher-kings.
Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens (undeniably a writer of considerable flair and originality), George Will and Tucker Carlson (both of whom seem to have conveniently recanted at the eleventh hour), Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Mark Steyn, Max Boot, John Podhoretz, Andrew Sullivan – they all grabbed the administration’s bluff and ran with it. Like the good Trotskyites many of them were, once they tasted blood, they writhed like sharks. Compounding their scent-impaired bloodhound act was their utter ignorance of geopolitical realities – they insisted our soldiers would be greeted with blooms and bonbons and that an Iraqi democracy would rise from the torrid sands of Mesopotamia.
Their innumerable errors and flagrant hubris did not prevent the neoconservatives from managing to marginalize their competitors on the Right: the intrepid Pat Buchanan and his American Conservative; the quixotic Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. of LewRockwell.com, and Antiwar.com. (Plus this column, of course). Unfortunately for America, there hasn’t been a horror in Iraq that these prescients did not foretell well in advance.

….the opportunity costs associated with consumption of toxic punditry are low or non-existent.

If you didn’t have the cerebral wherewithal to be against the war on Iraq in 2002, you don’t have anything original to contribute on foreign policy and anti-war or Just War thinking now.

Younger offenders can be found agitating against Iran, or scribbling inanities for the War Street Journal and other neoconservative outlets such as Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and Foreign Policy, where Sohrab Ahmari would put out irredeemable and unforgivable content such as “The Costs of Containment.”

It’s one thing to have made a mistake as Tucker Carlson had done regarding the Iraq war of aggression. Carlson apologized profusely and humbly about his Iraq error. Moreover, Carlson had never been the consummate philosophical neocon; which Sohrab Ahmari is. According to the Militarist Monitor,

“the neocons’ favorite Iranian,” Sohrab Ahmari has been a vocal advocate of U.S.-imposed regime change in his native Iran, which he left as a teenager. Rosenberg likened Ahmari to Ahmed Chalabi, the formerly exiled Iraqi politician who curried favor with U.S. neoconservatives ahead of the Iraq War and lent an Iraqi name to the list of those supporting the U.S. invasion.[3]

I’ve watched the likes of Sohrab Ahmari work their magic in the malfunctioning media for decades. I also understand fully that Tucker Carlson has a producer, for he himself cannot research each such well-promoted phony who is resurrecting a career on the solid anti-war arguments of the dissident Old, paleolibertarian and paleoconservative Right.

* Image: Truth-teller on Twitter.

And in defense of The Tuck against mediocrity Claire Lehmann, who generated the non sequitur below: Tucker Carlson doesn’t support the Russian invasion! From the fact he argues unpopular truths–it doesn’t follow that Tucker is not a populist. Most immutable truth is unpopular. Popularity does not equal populism. This woman can’t even define the terms of debate.

Alex Berenson Gets A Fail For Blackening Joe Rogan For His Impolitic, Impolite Speech

Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Culture, Etiquette, Free Speech, Intellectualism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Media, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism

Serious libertarians and conservatives will study and absorb the following principles articulated about the thought crime that is racism and the attendant impolite and impolitic speech that often accompanies it:

  • “Racism—systemic or other—remains nothing but thought crime: Impolite and impolitic thoughts, spoken, written or preached.”—ILANA Mercer,‘Systemic Racism’ Or Systemic Rubbish?” August 6, 2020.
  • “Thought crimes are nobody’s business in a free society.”—ILANA Mercer,‘Systemic Racism’ Or Systemic Rubbish?” August 6, 2020.
  • “A lot of establishment libertarians and conservatives have joined the neoconservative and neoliberal establishments in the habit of sniffing out racists. Sniffing out racists is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting libertarians (and conservatives). True libertarians don’t, or should not, prosecute thought crimes or persecute thought ‘criminals.’ Period.”—ILANA Mercer, Big League Politics, Interview With Ilana Mercer, November 23, 2018.

Consider those fundamentals and, in commitment to liberty, you will shrug off Joe Rogan’s speech of many years back as rude and uncouth, albeit rooted in a realistic stereotype, and leave it at that—no more rude and uncouth than the plethora of “cracker”-hating, anti-white pejoratives emitted approvingly by blacks, who are cheered when they rail against a group that isn’t remotely associated with high crime and social disruption.

Rogan was referencing a video compilation that features him in various contexts using the racial slur. It also includes him comparing being in the presence of Black people with the film Planet of the Apes. The video has gone viral online and was highlighted by musician India Arie in an Instagram Story she posted Thursday.

Thus when Alex Berenson acts as a racism-spotting scold-–an old biddy deploying cliches like, “I don’t know what’s in his heart” (oh, fuck off; it matters not. Rogan is a peaceful, productive human being)—Berenson deserves and earns contempt.

Rogan’s use of the n-word – and that Planet of the Apes story – are indefensible and humiliating and will haunt him for the rest of his career.
Our woke revolution has brought lots of linguistic rules I’ll argue. Not this one. That word has a unique history and power that give it a unique ugliness. The only slur remotely close might be “kike,” though even it doesn’t compare.

Fox News darling Alex Berenson has a pattern—has already proven to be a self-promoting weasel, using a TV segment to try and take out Robert Malone, who shot him down with a smile, no sweat, like the high IQ, classy gentleman and scholar he clearly is. Watch.

For his part, Rogan must get off his knees and quit apologizing. He’s worth $100 Million (it is an intellectually impoverish market place that has resulted in that sorry reality).  Rumble is pleased to pay that sum–as well as reinstate his verboten speech removed by the illiberal scolds.

UPDATED (12/24) On Being A Man*: NEW COLUMN: Extradited! Why Assange Fears Being ‘Epsteined’

Ethics, Free Speech, Globalism, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, libertarianism, Liberty, Morality, Political Philosophy, The Establishment, The State, War

NEW COLUMN: It suddenly struck me: Most men are cowards. How many men have the courage and character to step up and honor the highest principles or the best of humanity when they encounter these? Too few. Most live defensively or ignorantly, betraying the good for the bad. That’s why men like Assange are so impressive and important and true. They show us the way. While most men live in-thrall to miserable entities or people and the bonds they impose; Assange has shown us the right way to live within our own orbits; dangerously, if you must, never on your knees; bravely seeking that which is the best and the finest—be they principles or people.

Julian Assange has given his life in the cause of exposing global state and corporate corruption and the collusion betwixt. He should be thanked for his service, for Assange did not enlist to do The State’s bidding in futile, wicked wars in faraway lands. Rather, he went-up against the Administrative, Warfare, Surveillance State for The People.

Therefore, all state agents—media-military-congressional complex; local and global—want this, the greatest libertarian alive (if barely) to disappear. Never mind that First-Amendment jurisprudence is clear-cut with respect to the guerrilla journalism of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks operators have committed no crime in publishing what is undeniably true, newsworthy information, with probative value. Besides, why has America any jurisdiction over a foreign entity (WikiLeaks) and a foreign national (Julian Assange)?

Well, America has jurisdiction over Assange because it has simply asserted it based on trumped-up charges equating his journalism with espionage. Which is why Assange now fears being “Epsteined.”

THE NEW COLUMN is “Extradited! Why Assange Fears Being ‘Epsteined’”. Read it on WND.COM, Townhall.com and the Unz Review.

UPDATE (12/24): An honest man asks on Twitter how to become courageous. Am I an authority? No! I just try my best, in writing—having never betrayed my first principles for popularity or pelf—and in living, in charity and in loving and helping those who see me.

I have, however,  known people who never step up and are mired in cowardice, wasting their considerable mentation and manhood on being frightened in the quest for equilibrium (personally and politically); or  gulling themselves into believing that when they serve the wrong people and principles—they are ever-so good. Contempt is what they deserve. When encountering good people, fighting the good fight, doing good work—every person can honor that and help, rather than hinder.

My humble reply to Sean: “Within our orbits we can all try to stand up for the principles and people that matter and make a difference and need our energies most. So, I thank YOU for joining me here.”

* The “man” noun here is used in the traditional sense, as mankind. I include myself, a woman, as part of mankind. Your fucking sexual or gender orientation matters not. Quit the pronoun crap. That is another first principle: never dignify nonsense, including linguistic bafflegab. I write and think in English. So should you.