>

Saturday, September 8, 2018

New Tucker Carlson Book Coming: 'Ship of Fools'

A new Tucker Carlson book is about to be released, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

I expect it to be a mixed bag. At its worst, it will be anti-free trade and anti-immigration. At its best, it will be anti-political correctness and anti-war.

From the blurb:
In Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution, Tucker Carlson tells the truth about the new American elites, a group whose power and wealth has grown beyond imagination even as the rest of the country has withered. The people who run America now barely interact with it. They fly on their own planes, ski on their own mountains, watch sporting events far from the stands in sky boxes. They have total contempt for you.

“They view America the way a private equity firm sizes up an aging conglomerate,” Carlson writes, “as something outdated they can profit from. When it fails, they’re
gone.”

In Ship of Fools, Tucker Carlson offers a blistering critique of our new overlords. Traditional liberals are gone, he writes. The patchouli-scented hand-wringers who worried about whales and defended free speech have been replaced by globalists who hide their hard-edged economic agenda behind the smokescreen of identity politics. They’ll outsource your job while lecturing you about transgender bathrooms. Left and right, Carlson says, are no longer meaningful categories in America. “The rift is between those who benefit from the status quo, and those who don’t.”

Our leaders are fools, Carlson concludes, “unaware that they are captains of a sinking ship.” But in the signature and witty style that viewers of Tucker Carlson Tonight have come to enjoy, his book answers the all-important question: How do we put the country back on course?


-RW  

16 comments:

  1. What is wrong with 'anti=immigration'? America is fool already and we don't need any more turd world cultures over here that can't or won't assimilate. I find it notable that Russia is making a nice offer to Boers but not just any African.

    https://www.rt.com/business/432375-russia-south-africa-farmers/

    Zimbabwe is begging the white farmers to come back. But hey, I'm a 'da rasis' to point out these facts to open border libertardians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- What is wrong with 'anti=immigration'? ---

      It's based on the wrong notion that you have a right to someone else's property.

      --- Zimbabwe is begging the white farmers to come back ---

      They shouldn't, because "what's wrong with anti-immigration", right?

      Delete
    2. "It's based on the wrong notion that you have a right to someone else's property."

      ?????????????????????????????????????????

      Delete
    3. Can't you fathom it? Anti-immigration policies exist on the conceit that you have the right to tell your neighbor who he or she can hire, sell to, rent to or marry. It doesn't matter what justifications you conjure up --dem immigruntz takum er jebz or 'protect our precious bodily culture, commander Mandrake', etc.-- the policy still unduly interrupts a relationship you have no real interest in.

      Delete
    4. "It's based on the wrong notion that you have a right to someone else's property."

      That's baffling considering that open borders advocates would do nothing to reduce socialized infrastructure and services before allowing anyone and everyone in. It's not like the billions of people that would arrive in the USA would have the productivity to pay for all that additional government, especially with no selection of who may enter and who may not. And that's if all these billions of new voters don't vote themselves even more than the present level of government infrastructure and services.

      There's a reason open borders should be one of the last if not the last step in the creation of a libertarian nation or world. Doing it first essentially insures you'll never achieve one.

      Delete
    5. Re: Jimmy Joe Meeker,

      Leaving aside the obvious red herring you threw there (mentioning what 'open borders advocates' would not do as if you were able to read minds or see the future) the fact remains that immigration restrictionists operate under the conceit that they can tell others with whom they can engage in trade, or hire, or support, or rent to, buy from or even marry. Engaging in fear-mongering by alleging that "billions" will fly over like locusts provides only mild amusement with a touch of pity but nothing in terms of rational discourse. Someone talks about letting people be free to engage in trade and you and others of your ilk immediately conjure up apocalyptic images of hordes of welfare-hungry peasants as if everyone in the world had the wherewithal to travel to the US to collect assistance (never mind the fact that you underestimate the prerequisites necessary to receive assistance in this country). The surest way to achieve an isolated and least free society is precisely to keep it inside political borders and deprive it of outside influences. Such a society is going to achieve the ultimate homogeneity, and is going to be the poorest of all. If that's what you want, at least be honest and say so.

      Delete
    6. Torres, once again you reply without addressing my point. Here's a way how you should have replied as a libertarian:"Of course I would abolish socialized government services and infrastructure before opening the borders to everyone and anyone". Instead you write a bunch of stuff that doesn't address the point. The obvious reason for that is that you have no issue enslaving people and/or taking their wealth and property to provide services and infrastructure for an unlimited, unchecked number of newcomers. And yet you claim any limitation on more people entering the country is a violation of property rights.

      "mentioning what 'open borders advocates' would not do as if you were able to read minds or see the future"

      There's no need to read the future. They argue for open borders now. Not after we become more libertarian in the USA or anywhere else. Because they argue for it in the present that entails the present level of socialization of services and infrastructure paid for through taxation.

      Billions was an obvious typo, since the entire world population is only 7 billion. which you of course fully exploited, but it's not a small number. Estimates are roughly 150-200 million.

      "(never mind the fact that you underestimate the prerequisites necessary to receive assistance in this country)"

      I did not even cover assistance Mr. Torres, another habit of yours is fabricating arguments for me. I stated socialized government services and infrastructure. Those are things like schools, water systems, sewage systems, police, fire departments, and roads. If you want to talk assistance, there is state, county, and city level assistance just not federal as I pointed out to you before when you tried to claim immigrants didn't qualify for any.

      "The surest way to achieve an isolated and least free society is precisely to keep it inside political borders and deprive it of outside influences. "

      I made no such argument. I presented an argument regarding completely open borders being a violation of the property rights of the people who would have to pay the taxes for the resulting expansion of government. In response to your argument that anything but open borders was a violation of property rights. But instead you try to stuff completely closed borders into my mouth. I've never made any argument for completely closed borders ever.

      " Such a society is going to achieve the ultimate homogeneity, and is going to be the poorest of all. If that's what you want, at least be honest and say so."

      Too bad you can't debate honestly. Should I choose some horrible view and then ask if that's what you want, at least be honest and say so? It's a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic and using it says a lot about you.

      Delete
    7. Re: Jimmy Joe Meeker,

      --- Torres, once again you reply without addressing my point. ---

      It wasn't a point. It was a red herring. A clumsy distraction.

      --- I presented an argument regarding completely open borders being a violation of the property rights of the people who would have to pay the taxes for the resulting expansion of government. ---

      No, you're confusing two different things to then attack the wrong culprint. The way you frame the argument could be used to advocate for mass sterilization of people who don't pay taxes because their children would represent an attack on the property rights of taxpayes, only if you were sincere about it. Who is taking the taxes? The state, not immigrants, not people. It's the state. Why should people's free, peaceful and voluntary actions be predicated on the actions the state takes? That's why your argument is a red herring, a distraction. You're not sincere about the argument, you wouldn't apply it consistently as noted above, because you don't want to be seen as a monster who advocates for sterilization, just one who doesn't like immigrants.

      Delete
    8. "The way you frame the argument could be used to advocate for mass sterilization of people who don't pay taxes because their children would represent an attack on the property rights of taxpayes"

      Here you go again with your despicable debate tactics, now you combine a strawman with accusing me of some horrid thing. And again you refuse to address the point, and calling it a distraction doesn't make it so. In fact you're creating distractions and then projecting that.

      "Why should people's free, peaceful and voluntary actions be predicated on the actions the state takes?"

      I answered this already. Because those actions impose costs on others through the state. Thus the state is in play until it is removed. I proposed removing it from the equation so open borders could work. Sterilization programs -expand- the state, which you know, you just want to distract. Putting open borders at the end of the list of things to accomplish in dismantling the state does not. It just puts it at the end of the list to more effectively achieve liberty.

      Furthermore:
      Would you defuse a bomb by cutting random wires?
      Would you tear down a large building by placing explosives randomly or hitting it with a wrecking ball in random places? Or maybe you prefer using a backhoe and tearing into it randomly. All those things destroy neighboring property and get people killed and injured. Much the same with randomly tearing into something like the state.

      That's what you propose here if we assume you're libertarian. Why? Why do you want to tear into something as large and dangerous as the state randomly? Whatever you can get whenever you can get it? Such a tactic makes no sense. That's how you get disasters that are blamed on libertarians and the free market. Those disasters then grow the state.

      Look at how the housing crash was framed. It was framed as the fault of the free market because one piece of a regulatory system was removed. But it wasn't removed randomly. It was removed to serve various interests that benefited from the regulatory system left with its removal. Then the state grew in the wake. Given what you spend your time advocating for and your commentary when I first saw your comments here I am going to guess that you're looking to create a larger more dangerous and vile state. One which you perceive as a benefit to you. You want what results from removing a single piece. Your reaction to my argument is loud and clear, it's not random for you, you want something that results from simply opening the borders.

      "you don't want to be seen as a monster who advocates for sterilization, just one who doesn't like immigrants."

      I propose that you're not a libertarian, Torres. You behave like a leftist. This is how leftists "debate". I argue for tearing down the state in a controlled manner so we don't end up with something worse. Perhaps even a revolution that makes us all worse off. You apparently want that revolution (a presumably lefist one) or whatever change you think 150 million plus people would result in. And given what you project on me, one which would be consistent with those that occurred throughout the 20th century complete with how those who didn't believe in it were dealt with.

      Again, just to be clear, I am for open borders but it is something that has to be worked towards with preparation, with tearing down the monstrous state in a controlled manner. The one you seek to leave intact while opening the borders resulting in much less freedom.

      Delete
    9. I don't seek to leave the state intact. I have made myself very clear about that numerous times. I simply don't have the same penchant as you to make appeals to perfection as a way to object against more freedom, i.e. the "This is why we can't have nice things" fallacy.

      Delete
    10. A new accusation, this one of perfection. You're playing wackamole as the moles.

      As outlined previously it's about avoiding disasters that lead to less liberty and set movement towards liberty back. Perfection is not even implied or expected or necessary. It has to do with a sensible logical approach to reach the goal by avoiding obvious pitfalls and traps. Avoiding things that will ultimately be used by the state for expansion.


      Delete
    11. Now that I can answer back without using a mobile device,

      ── I presented an argument regarding completely open borders being a violation of the property rights of the people who would have to pay the taxes for the resulting expansion of government. ──

      And I demonstrated that this is red herring. Anything you can think of can become a risk to property rights under those terms including spitting out newborn babies. I showed you this, yet you prefer to cling to your original idea.

      ── In response to your argument that anything but open borders was a violation of property rights. ──

      Because the ****POLICY**** entails imposing yourself, or letting the state impose itself, between two individuals of peaceful intentions, i.e. the immigrant and the person who wants to engage with the immigrant in voluntary trade, be it: giving the immigrant a job, rent to him/her, sell to him/her or even marry him/her. Whatever EXCUSE you want to pull out of your you-know-what to justify an aggressive attitude towards those individuals, is just that - AN EXCUSE, not a valid argument. You can't presume to know what an immigrant will do vis-a-vis the welfare state. You are entitled to assume anything, but not to *presume* to know.

      ── I argue for tearing down the state in a controlled manner so we don't end up with something worse. ──

      Why exactly would you even entertain the notion that the two thing we're discussing are mutually exclusive? They're not. Where are you getting the idea that the survival of the state is predicated on what you may call "unbridled immigration"? That's a canard. It's absurd! Again, is like arguing that the State survives on people having children! Where would the difference lie? I would posit that immigrants are BETTER than children when it comes to predations on people's property rights because immigrants already come with two good arms and a developed mind, read to work and produce things, whereas children - YES, EVEN THE NATIVE-BORN! - need to grow and learn before they can start doing anything, them lazy bums. When are they going to contribute to anything, I say? In the meantime, I have to pay taxes to keep them kiddies incarcerated every half-day inside something people call ─with a sick sense of humor, I might add─ "schools". I would rather people be sterilized before I drop a single additional cent! Right?

      No? That's the implication of your "argument". That's why I don't trust the sincerity if your supposed plan to dismantle the state. Anti-immigration policies DEPEND on increasing the size and scope of the State, since anti-immigration policies imply a PROHIBITION - you DO understand prohibitions, don't you, and what they entail?

      Another thing: Stop portraying yourself as some kind of victim. Learn to argue for a damned change.

      Delete
    12. Any American who is afraid of immigration is a coward. Bunch of whiny little wusses who can't hack it so they run to the guvmint for help.

      Delete
  2. --- How do we put the country back on course? ---

    Why, by turning it into a fortress, of course!

    --- They’ll outsource your job while lecturing you about transgender bathrooms. ---

    Sure, 'they'll' outsource "your" job. They, whoever "they" happen to be, not the employer whose money is on the line. Not the businessman who owns the capital. No, it's some "they" Tucker will not bother to define with precision. I am not sure what bothers me more, if Tucker's appeal to paranoid fears or his continuous use of Marxian rhetoric every time he talks about depriving people of something that never belonged to them in the first place. All jobs belong to employers, npt to employees. When I resign a job, I am not "giving it" to the employer. I was engaging in a trade, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Left and right, Carlson says, are no longer meaningful categories in America. “The rift is between those who benefit from the status quo, and those who don’t.” "

    He's on the right track with this sentiment. As Rothbard has noted about class analysis, the real battle is between the state and its cronies vs. everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except “the status quo” basically just means “anything that’s happening now that I don’t like.”

      Delete