Tucker Carlson Is Even Worse Than a Russian Stooge

If before this interview I used to think that Carlson is nothing more than merely a Russian and Qatari propagadist and apologist with antisemitic sentiment who goes to Moscow to interview an aging KGB clerk, now I think somewhat differently. He may well receive paychecks from the Kremlin and Doha, that would not surprise me in the least but it appears he may be receiving those paychecks not for churning out carefully crafted propaganda talking points but simply for being… himself.

His reasoning about World War I and World War II is what nearly convinced me of that.

In Carlson’s view, the UK had no business fighting either war. Britain should have ignored its commitment to Belgium because, essentially, “why bother?” It should also have listened to Hitler’s “promise” that he did not want war with Britain. Again: why bother?

He then applies essentially the same framework to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine: Why does Britain bother?

To Carlson, neither Britain’s status as a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum nor concepts such as territorial integrity, the nation-state and sovereignty seem to carry much weight. On the contrary, he challenges them through bizarre reasoning. If, for example, American troops are stationed in Britain, he suggests this somehow means Britain is not truly a nation-state, as though a sovereign country cannot choose to host foreign troops on its territory precisely as an exercise of sovereignty.

But perhaps the most disturbing moment came when Rees-Mogg told Carlson that he was coming close to defending Hitler after Carlson began rationalizing the invasion of Poland on the grounds that some of the territory had previously belonged to Germany. Fine. Territorial disputes are hardly unusual motivations for war.

But there is a catch.

Hitler’s war was not some grievance over losing Alsace-Lorraine or another piece of territory that had once belonged to Germany. It was rooted in an ideology of racial supremacy and purity, drawing on a grotesque intellectual tradition, including Nietzsche’s controversial views, and ultimately producing horrors such as the Holocaust.

How can one possibly omit that while asking why Britain fought a war that allegedly did not “benefit” it?

There is an answer that I find even more disturbing than the idea of Carlson simply acting as a Russian or Qatari propagandist: an almost gluttonous selfishness. Nothing matters unless it benefits me, here and now. Carlson more or less admits throughout the interview that he simply does not care about much beyond that calculation. Except, apparently, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Gaza. Those seem to provoke in him the question: How can you kill women and children?

Which is an interesting burst of moral concern from someone who has just managed to discuss Hitler, Poland and Britain’s decision to fight Nazi Germany while omitting the Holocaust and the consequences of allowing an ideology of racial supremacy to triumph.

So when he sarcastically says that “I guess I’m a secret Nazi”, I believe him. He’s just rottenly immoral.