Tucker Carlson's Nationalist Socialism

you jumped event wagon you're all like oh I'm against the globalist elite blah blah blah it's not very convincing to be honest hey everyone so as you all seen in recent political trends Bucer berelson the lib tard stomper did a honestly pretty grueling and remarkably unintelligent segment for his show even by the status quo standards in which he attempts to argue that fake Indian Elizabeth Warren's proposed economic policy plans would be beneficial for the United States population by generating more wealth for more people now I can and believe me I will be going into more detail as to why Tucker is more wrong than Elizabeth Warren is white but the reason I decided to make this video is for the most part not based around the conclusion of Tucker's argument but the narrative he built and some of the supporting claims for his case because holy shit the arguments in this segment ranged from being just worse than Tucker's regular brand of demagoguery and pseudo-intellectual ISM to being as cringe inducing ly cancerous as Elizabeth Warren isn't a real Indian but without further ado I think that we should start this tonight let's begin with a thought experiment what if the Republican leadership here in Washington had bothered to learn the lessons of the 2016 election what if they'd cared enough to do that what if they had understood and embraced the economic nationalism that was at the heart of Donald Trump's presidential campaign well firstly Donald Trump throughout his entire presidential campaign presented himself near exclusively as a free marketer who was going to repeal most of the federal government's regulations on the economy with the exception of vaguely mentioning once in August of 2016 on the campaign trail in typical political speak that he'd consider having the US government create tariffs for Chinese imports during a rally in Tampa Florida in fact Trump went so far as to allude to abolishing the Federal Reserve entirely of course three years on it's plainly obvious to everyone what should have been from the start which is that as a politician Donald Trump's interests are necessarily those of the government's and the government's interests fundamentally run contrary to the abridgement of its influence over society due to how late the state is into its debt cycle and simply how much spending is required for the government to sustain itself due to how much trade occurs and how many people are in the US and that fractional reserve banking is required for any state to sustain itself this late in the affirm inch and debt cycle the point is though Donald Trump's economic proposals throughout his campaign were overwhelmingly centered around two major points that regulatory burden in the United States was causing economic problems for the average person and for manufacturers mainly that regulations were causing artificial scarcity in turn depriving people of financial opportunities they would otherwise have and increasing the cost of commodities and services which needless to say given that according to the IRS taxes increased last year by 90 billion because despite what the media says the tax rate actually went up all the Trump tax proposal did was shifted the tax increases away from where it was visible and according to the Federal Register 250 to 300 new federal regulations are created on average every single day whereas throughout Trump's entire presidency there have only been 40 repealed federal regulations I think it's safe to argue that Trump is well a fucking liar just like any other politician who claims that there are free marketer the second point was that the United States's immigration laws needed to be more expansive which yeah that's stupid the point is though that this neo mercantilist tariff man you're praising is not even close to what people were told they would get with Donald Trump as president so if we were to take anything away from strictly pulling ideological positions and the results of the 2016 election in terms of what's needed to fix society's ills which by the way argumentum ad populum that's not a valid line of reasoning what polling shows is that people largely want a shift away from what they perceive to be the political status quo and they want the government to stop suppressing their rights specifically along with their ability to make a living by creating artificial scarcity through increasing the amount of regulations and spending in the economy which is pretty much the exact opposite of what the state's interests are and how Donald Trump advertised his presidency during the 2016 election but miss me with that gay shit I mean we all know that all politicians have a universal set of interests since they're all operating and working for the exact same organization so nothing I mentioned is newest to any of the longtime viewers of this channel you may be saying and you'd be right so let's talk about the more interesting subject Tucker just mentioned and what most of this segment is centered around other than half of it being Tucker literally just reading and gushing over Elizabeth Warren's economic policies listed on her website for Batum which is his so-called nationalist economics yeah it's remarkable how close to this date is to just coming out right and saying that its interests are to control as much of Industry as is possible without taking too many resources out of the economy though of course they never fully will since doing so would reveal to the majority of the population that the states in order to exist must disincentivize production to where producers will stop being able to make revenue from trade due to less people producing and due to artificial scarcity and this fundamentally being something which could never be changed for reasons previously noted for those who haven't caught on yet nationalist economics as Tucker described it is just an incredibly Orwellian euphemism for mercantilism ie what is colloquially known as the model which feudalism was based on which to describe simply was an economic theory arguing that the wealth in the world economy was static and as a result that every nation should seek to accumulate the largest possible amount of that wealth by producing and exporting as many commodities and placing as many protectionist trade restrictions on imports as possible so basically the state if and when it was more honest about its interests and how it needs to function to sustain itself but projected onto broader human action now mercantilism in relation to the global economy was and unfortunately as alluded to is still somewhat practiced in a varying degree by every nation in the world to this day needless to say the modern type of state is unsustainable because of its exponential growth curve but is able to sustain itself and prevent itself from defaulting a bit longer by not suppressing the ability of non-state actors to speculate with their resources in market activity within a framework that is manipulated by the state heavily so it doesn't end up undermining the state's ability to sustain itself so it's pretty easy to see why an economic model which has an exponential growth curve like all states but uses force to limit the amount of people who are able to produce and speculate to only one organization with a handful of state picked actors operating at fur industry with the state directly suppressing all exchanges which occur with other nations unless the trade is more beneficial to the specific state in question and are only able to utilize resources and produce commodities which the state directly approves of with no competition of course those terms are entirely arbitrary and with significantly less marginal utility with their resources since they stole all of their resources from non-state actors failed miserably in every single regard at some point in the future I'll probably make a full video criticizing mercantilism but I'll go over a few concepts briefly I've already made a video specifically criticizing tariffs on trade as a means of generating more wealth and great lengths but as a brief summary of the problems with tariffs like any tax or trade regulation tariffs are specifically intended to create a supply manipulation where less production can occur because costs are artificially inflated too by the tax consequently fewer commodities can be exchanged because fewer commodities can be exchanged this means that fewer people have access to an increasingly scarce amounts of resources which necessarily will cause a disemployment effect and in turn increase the cost of trading for the populations of both nations where the tariffs exist then of course there's the faulty premise which mercantilism starts with and assuming that the economy is a zero-sum model of organizing in other words the notion that if someone obtains a resource then that means there are fewer resources which exist in society for other people to obtain the problem with this being as I've noted before that there isn't a static sum of resources when actually all trade is by definition positive some sense in order for any non coercive exchange to occur both parties must consider the resources that they're receiving to be more valuable than what they're giving to the other party in fact the only way to argue this would be to deny modern supply and demand theory since according to this view of mark there could never be a fluctuating supply of resources or consumer demand people like Tucker Carlson often Mike in the economy – a pie but in reality it's more along the lines of a pool which expands or shrinks depending on a large diversity of circumstances and that's not even to mention how price and value are regularly affected by conditions entirely outside of the control of producers such as whether personal preferences on the part of the consumer or social controversies etc most importantly however because this is a point which protectionists consistently failed to take into consideration there is the law of comparative advantage which allows manufacturers who make products for different industries from different regions with varying levels of access to certain resources that differ widely from other regions or communities to manufacture commodities with more efficiency and for lower cost simply because it's cheaper for these producers to obtain the means required to produce the commodities and they can produce them more efficiently but I digress we'll just focus on the specific points Tucker makes in this video for now go on Tucker try to explain away the law of comparative advantage how you can obtain greater wealth by creating an artificial scarcity of resources produced in your society or how using coercion to arbitrarily limit innovation specifically so that production is made less efficient and our quality of living consequently stagnates we're even potentially declines doesn't cause poverty well for starters Republicans in Congress would regularly be saying things like this quote I'm deeply grateful for the opportunities America has given me but the giant American corporations who control our economy don't seem to feel the same way nope he doesn't even try in fact as mentioned half of this segment literally Tucker verbatim reading off of Elizabeth Warren's website yes we're at peak cloud world where the shills in order to supplant the state's agenda into their narratives they can't even superficially sound different than one another like all shows though and mainstream conservatives Tucker just asserts these things and parades anyone who disagrees with them for not understanding common sense as if these are neutral concepts without most of the study of markets providing evidence which counters everything protectionism argues for so why did I choose this segment to respond to then you might be asking well it's what he says afterwards that made this probably the hottest take I've ever responded to on this channel now let's say you regularly vote Republican ask yourself what part of the statement you just heard did you disagree with was there a single word that seemed wrong to you probably not here's the depressing part nobody you voted for said that or would ever say it Republicans in Congress can't promise to protect American industry they wouldn't dare to do that it might violate some principle of Austrian economics it might make the Koch brothers mad it might alienate the libertarian ideologues who to this day fund most Republican campaigns what what so no a Republican did not say that sadly the first time I heard this I actually had to replay the footage because I'd legitimate Lee could not believe what I just heard but yes it appears that either they've been rattled so hard by people like James Corbett world alternative media for your thought Project Zero Hedge or even possibly myself within general libertarian online circles who keep exposing controlled opposition master narratives of state actors trying to convince people that their interests are aligned with those of Elite and or by the fact that the US government is the least trusted organization in the United States with this trend of governments around the world losing favorability with their populations to non-state actors that they need to have their media actors engage in one of the most hilarious desperate obvious and consequently tone-deaf forms of psychological projection towards the main group of people calling them out on their bullshit that I think I have ever seen the controlled opposition state media tucker carlson especially is on ironically starting to run with the narrative that the deep state that the deep state they talk about is now a group of libertarians control the world and they say just a one-time thing either they're actually running with this tucker carlson while i was out of town which by the way is the reason this essay took so long to finish actually recorded an entire segment where he argues this same point citing the koch brothers as examples of libertarians both to misrepresent libertarian philosophy to feed the laughable notion that wealthy business interests influence state policy decisions to any effective degree and that the interest of corporations is to get rid of regulations rather than corporations quite literally only existing as a direct product of state secured legal privileges and of course try to create the unbelievably Orwellian narrative that people who advocate for the anti political philosophy which asserts that all political rule is illegitimate are somehow the secret political elite behind the shadows that are really influencing the states decisions or even mainstream co-opted libertarianism through the libertarian party libertarians who were never principally libertarian in the first place as they accept coercive violence ie political authority as a means of achieving their end goals and the message of which was diluted through the process of co-optation ironically the same tactic which tucker carlson is trying to use here to obscure the philosophical first principles of libertarianism by corporatists such as Charles Koch and basically just turning the lp's message into a milquetoast form of liberalism which is of course safe for the political elite since most modern governments were founded upon those political allegiances the latter group have absolutely no members elected to any positions not that it matters since the interests of all politicians are identical as agents of the state whose narratives have no influence in mainstream politics media or entertainment not that it matters since again their message no longer has even a slight resemblance to the anti political philosophy they claim that their platform is rooted from and who can't appeal to the interest of the general population through their messaging if it meant saving their balls from being sucked into a wood chipper because they had to sacrifice the principles they claim to stand for to merely have a political party and attempt to engage in the political system which by the way many actual libertarians are on record criticizing the Libertarian Party and distancing themselves on these basis most notably Konkan who funnily enough actually was the one who coined the term coked-up us and then of course this information is ultimately part of the exact same master narrative pushed by media personalities that pretends to be skeptical of the political elite within the mainstream media which is that anything the government does which is unethical or goes against the general interests of non-state actors isn't the result of politicians simply operating in the state's material interests in order to sustain it for the time being which requires force or the fact that the state is an inherently unaccountable monopoly on arbitration that you're for to associate with no it's that everything which is wrong with the state is actually the fault of malicious deep state actors behind the scene who are corrupting this otherwise pristine institution that is supposed to function in theory in the greater good because mud government supposed to represent my people which of course is complete nonsense and comes with its own problems such as how this argument creates a performative contradiction by asserting that you can both be ruled over and have dominion over the organization which is exercising political rule over you how this implies that there exists a contractual agreement which every person consented to that gives the government legitimacy in doing what it does despite the fact that provably no such document exists and that consensual agreements require both parties to actively affirm their agreement to the Association since it's impossible to prove a negative which is why any other argument for implicit consent that isn't convenient for the state would be laughed out of any arbitration hearing that it's presented in or how social utility arguments even in premise don't stand up to scrutiny since every individual has different social and material interests some of which necessarily have to contradict one another in order for the state to legislate them as economic policies intended to benefit one or more of these groups and because anything the government does is ultimately going to be in its own interests which is provably disconnected and at the direct expense of non-state actors the basis for all state action being coercive violence in the aims of achieving this goal and with the fact that this organization is heavily centralized and necessarily inefficient as a result while requiring coercion to obtain its resources this means that there is going to be a necessary disconnect between stated goals of politicians for what the gold state action are intended to accomplish in the political and media narratives and the inevitable conclusion of the state's actions and how non-state actors are actually affected by it as a result government action intended to create social utility as the concept is so fluid that anything could easily fall under this category consequently because there's no consistently definitive set of characteristics for what social utility can be there is no basis for what defines legislation that creates social utility but I mean this is state propaganda so pretty much the only reason that arguments that perpetuate these narratives thrive is because the majority of the population were brainwashed into believing them as the foundation of civic structures in government education because as far as their merit is concerned these social contract arguments are really fucking dumb and don't even come close to standing up to even basic scrutiny I mean do I even really need to dignify this argument from an intellectual standpoint with a response because this is so disingenuous and nonsensical that even the slightest bit of scrutiny would reveal that this narrative is even more stupid and wrong than most narratives constructed by state propagandists this wasn't intended to be scrutinized though now there are different kinds of propaganda and propagandists Tucker Carlson is what I like to refer to as a soundbite propagandist he's someone who is mostly sold to a disillusioned audience he's appealing to with the reaction and spin created by the media personalities whose reports are controlled and written by the state under the same narratives but are advertised towards the population which isn't disillusioned with the state by painting people like Tucker Carlson as anti establishments are dangerous for the political elites when in reality you're about the most unordinary person I know you're an elitist you're an asshole no I'm good see I'm in for the closet elitist I don't want around pretending to be a man of the people I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all there's bitch I'm 100% his bitch whatever mr. Murdoch does I do there's kind of a deep phone enos at the center of his shtick because it's sort of built on this perception that he is the character he plays he is everyman this kind of pie he's not right-wing he's a populist fighting for you against the powers that be and that's great as a shtick but I'm just saying the moments that it's revealed not to be true it's over right because the whole thing is predicated on the fact that he is who he says he is and just nobody is that person especially not someone that makes a million dollars you know many millions a year the state creates personalities like Tucker who superficially criticize personalities and organizations also created by the state which advertise themselves to people that don't perceive themselves as being a disadvantaged by the current political order and what they promote in order to appeal and trick the disillusioned people seeking alternatives into thinking that the information which he presents isn't connected to the same political establishment that the former category promotes but then subtly tricking them into thinking that their interests are aligned with the interests of the political elite and then in turn convincing them that the current political order is in their interest so that they stop dissenting and people like Tucker do this by tricking people into accepting the same narrative structures promoted by the former category of personalities by presenting information which appears to be different from a cursory glance but ends up promoting the same agendas and tries to lead people to the same conclusions as the other state controlled media personalities and I can't think of a better fucking example of this than this segment where he almost verbatim promotes literally the exact same economic ideas espoused by the likes of Rachel Maddow or brian Stelter using nearly identical rhetoric as and of course like always coming to the exact same conclusions of all of these other media personalities and outlets proposing the exact same narrative structure that every single state show does which is the states necessary the state functions in your interests the state is good and if the state doesn't function in your interest for any reason or is exposed doing something wrong it's not the state's fault it's the fault of some outside corrupting influence which surely has absolutely nothing to do with what's required for the state to function or any other state program which is currently influencing society like this is so blatant that it almost makes me wonder if the script writers who wrote this actually intended for this to be read by someone like Tom Hartman and accidentally sent it to Fox News for them to give it to Tucker Carlson anyway that's all for today's video if you liked it please comment rate and subscribe and remember to watch out for shills in the media

  1. Riccardian comparative advantage theory actually only applies under a very specific set of circumstances, many of which we know are not, in fact, accurate to the way the world really works. for one it actually assumes that capital and labor are non-mobile.

    Because capital is mobile we can predict that under free trade rules, certain countries will manipulate their economies to take advantage of the consumption power of more free economies to load the latter with debt and seize their assets. This is exactly what we observe with china. and because labor is mobile we see that the only way to maximize global free trade requires international movement of nearly 5% of the earth's population each year, comparable to the rate of movement within relatively free countries like the US. This will in turn lead to roughly half of the population of any country leaving by the time they are 30, conditions under which no nation can be sustained. we will become atomized and isolated from social relationships chasing ever more slight increases in global economic growth, most of which will be felt not by those who are forced to move to maintain their standard of living but by the ruling class who manipulate them into doing so via both hard but more often soft power.

  2. Feudalism was meant to benefit the ruling class, ie the king and his lords, at the expense of the peasantry and serfs. Economic nationalism is putting the well-being of the nation first and letting the economic policy follow from that position. Well-being is not necessarily measured in dollars and cents and GDP and other materialistic standards, as there is a necessary social and even spiritual dimension to human life, and well-being can even include a degree of hardship in order to promote a sense of purpose by overcoming it, in fact I might say that it must include this as those who face no hardship in life become the most nihilistic.

  3. Awesome . 👍

    Yes . Please do one on Mercantilism .
    ( Sixteen tons plays softly )
    1. Captured market
    2. Iou's ( On loan at interest currency)
    3. Participantion is survival mode , not informed consent
    4. Top Down
    5. Failes every single time
    6. Model proven unsustainable hundreds of years ago
    7. Is the federal reserve system and the ultimate demise of same

  4. 1:45 As I said on Shane's video which also ripped Carlson at least 3 new ones on the matter of that Fox News ticker:
    "'Which party has embraced economic nationalism?'
    Both of them, Tucker. Both the Democrats & the Republicans are anti-free trade & support immigration restrictions. That makes them economically nationalist (and probably also legit racist) by definition."
    It got a <3 from Shane and (at the time of posting) 30 likes. 😀 The highest on that video.

  5. 0:52 dat article title. And Republicrats wonder why folks like me treat them as interchangeable…

  6. 1st 24 seconds: Love the Undertale music. XD Good one. Also, double bogons to any alt-right nimrods calling libertarians manchildren or autistic or whatever…I guess it doesn't count when people THEY like do it…

  7. I didn't notice at first playing clinteastwood in the background lol my favorite song from favorite band, Gorillaz!

  8. The term "libertarian" is deadweight.

    People who like freedom should just call themselves anarchists

  9. Ok so you do have a broad understanding of the issues, but still arent sure where your bias lies. You feel safe making harsh claims, but only because you have no idea where you might be wrong.

  10. Well i can see why your under 10,000
    Still cant fathom why youtube recomanded you to me well other then Gorilaz clint eastwood song you play in BG

  11. "Now let's say you regularly vote Republican, ask yourself: What part of the statement you just heard did you disagree with? Was there a single word that seemed wrong with you? Probably not. Here's the depressing part:

    Nobody you voted for said that, or would ever say it. Republicans and Congress can't promise to protect American industry, they wouldn't dare to do that. It might violate some principle of Austrian Economics! It might make the Koch Brothers mad! It might alienate the libertarian ideologues who to this day, fund most Republican campaigns." – Carlson, Tucker (MMXIX)

    Something i will quote to my future children as my witnessing of Late Stage Statism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *