Tucker's got some razzamatazz of history I enjoy. I never understood Wrangel as a russian name, for example. The guy, Wrangel, is a general, and appalled by what his troops are doing.
Russia is European in as much as it is geographically so, with Western Russia being on the same European plain as Germany the Baltic republics, etc.
Wrangel (sometimes transliterated as Wrangell or Vrangel, from the Russian Вра́нгель) is, so Google indicates, a Baltic German noble family, whose members have also been included in Swedish, Russian, Spanish and Prussian nobility.
Peter Wrangel was a leader of the white forces-- that means he was a liberal democrat.
I agree with Tucker saying Peter Wrangel was thus revolutionary.
Russia had been under this or that czar and medieval, way past other parts of Europe, and perhaps this is why the rest of Europe wanted Russia not to be included in Europe.
I thought the main reasons for the objection to Russian inclusion in the EU where:
(i) Russia, with twice the population of any other EU nation plus ten times the number of bombs and missiles would inevitably dominate the Union.
(ii) The EU plus Russia would be larger, more resource rich and wealthier than the US meaning an end to US hegemony.
(iii) Only if Russia is isolated can it be destroyed as a unified state and transformed into a collection fo Zelensyoid corruptionistans to be looted by US capital.
Tucker, working from Peter Wrangell's account, talks of Peter going back into Russia, only to see his own men, in uniform, behaving abominably. Raping women is the example Tucker gives.
Tucker is botching it here.
Tucker believes troops never raped or disobeyed orders until modern times.
I see this as Tucker believing monarchy can be shown to be a superior form of government because everyone knew who the authority was, and what the punishments were, if one disobeyed the authority.
"Tucker believes ..." Does he really say that explicitly. Seems daft.
But as for the advantages of monarchy, Putin seems to be demonstrating what those advantages are. In Russia there's no bullshit. Pussy Riot? Bring out the horse whips. Black Lives Matter anyone? You gotta be kidding, those morons would be in jail within a coupla hours.
He is hard to follow, even if you have a smattering of background knowledge about the subject upon which he lectures. Most of his audience, in my opinion, doesn't. They have to be left in the dark...
What happens is Tucker induces a kind of "cold cloud reading" response in his audience, where some people see Lincoln's profile in the clouds, others, a fluffy lion, and so forth. It is all supported by what they hear being said-- or nothing is supported?
Trump is doing the very same thing. It is very polarizing and at the same time neutralizing. Neutralizing through bewilderment.
Here is from the very beginning: Tucker has read a biography he recommends everyone read. It is about Peter Wrangell, "who was the leader of the revolutionary white forces during the Russian revolution...um, civil war, rather...That came after the revolution. He was a Baltic German [Tucker waives his arms around as if he himself is very confused by himself at this point] living in Russia and a general who worked for the czar ... The war ends or Russia ceases its hostility with Germany...He comes back to St. Petersburg and the country is in complete chaos and the Bolsheviks have decided its discontent in the army we need to inflame. I don't know if this sounds familiar to anyone here, he he, but get the guns and the people who wield them. We need them. So the first thing they do is destroy all discipline in the czar's army, complete. So Peter Wrangell has been on the front for four years and he comes back St. Petersburg totally civilized city, two hours drive from Helsinki, I mean it is Europ...blah blah blah."
(1) "who was the leader of the revolutionary white forces during the Russian revolution...um, civil war, rather...That came after the revolution."
There is a very complicated history of struggle, revolution, World War, civil war, ethnic strife, epochal political upheaval at this time. A very complicated history difficult to comprehend.
Tucker is mixing and matching, swirling and twirling this complicated history, making it not only difficult to comprehend, but incomprehensible.
What is a White Russian? Well, I'll have one right now, though it is only 6:30 a.m. here in Alaska. I'll follow it with a Moscow Mule, or should I say St. Petersburg Mule? After that, straight vodka, please.
Okay, Wrangell was "leader of the revolutionary white forces during the Russian revolution".
Maybe that's the Russian Revolution of 1905. None of us in the audience could guess, at this point.
Or maybe this "Russian revolution" is the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, led by Lenin. Of course. My guess is most of the audience will assume so. I did. I was trying to figure out how a leader of the white russian forces was involved in 1917, but we rush on into yet more tangled befuddlement before I could do so.
It can't anything with any historical exactitude as Tucker references it here, though. Tucker realizes something is wrong and appears to correct himself by now calling it a civil war "rather". I didn't even hear the correction the first time I listened, and I almost never listen to this kind of thing more than once.
Okay, the Russian Civil War. What could that be? Tucker offers it as a correction, but is it a correction or further befuddlement? We must be generous, so try to treat it as a correction we don't understand because we are "even more idiotic than Tucker, that great genius?" There is what is called the February Revolution, of 1917, but that is called a revolution. Not a civil war. It is also overlooked and forgotten in most accounts of this time period. No, it can't be this either.
I have to grab a White Russian, Moscow Mule, and vodka, but hopefully I will be able to come back and pick this apart further. I feel this is a worthwhile exercise, if only for myself. It is better to do it here because I like to make myself open to correction and criticism.
Well laying out the details of Russia's early 20th Century political transformation in less than about a thousand pages is difficult. Carlson is wrong on some details but his main point, I think, remains valid. What is that point? That elites, when threatened, are prone to show sympathy for those who would send them to the guillotine in the hope that they will be treated more leniently. This Tucker implies is the reason for the current toleration of revolutionary behavior of BLM, etc. I think on that he is right.
"What is that point? That elites, when threatened, are prone to show sympathy for those who would send them to the guillotine in the hope that they will be treated more leniently."
I'll listen again without being so finnicky.
However, I do not believe the elites are the least threatened by any of the crap we're talking about here.
They find it very easy to use that crap to their advantage.
Example:
Jamie Fricken' Dimon, CEO of JP Fricken' Morgan.
He counts as American elite, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was the most powerful man in America.
Gee, Dimon is 67, only two years older than me. I used to be able to take comfort in the time buffer between myself, in my silly anonymity and impotence, and the high and mighty, figuring the many years ahead would take me to where they are.
He sure laughed in the face of Elizabeth Warren, and that was that for Liz. She got exposed for not knowing basketball isn't played outdoors on a field one hundred yards long.
She wasn't even on the right court. She's a lawyer, too.
Okay, I'm on a tangent, so now back to Dimon and BLM.
"Actions Matter. Today, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is making a $30 billion commitment over the next five years to address drivers of the racial wealth divide. We have a collective responsibility to take action to address systemic racism, starting within our own workforce by building a more inclusive environment, and helping Black and Latinx people build small businesses, become homeowners, find an affordable place to live, and improve their financial health."
Mr. Dimon from three years ago-- height of the pandemic? Yep.
"The big Wall Street banks have all talked a good line about supporting the Black Lives Matter movement."
Please interpret this article for me and give me the main point, the gist.
My interpretation is Dimon and other elites understand BLM is no real threat to them, and can be mollified as easily as a baby is given a rubber pacifier thingie. (If you compare giving $30 billion "to the cause" with giving a baby a pacifier, there will be indignation, and stern looks suggesting you don't understand real sacrifice or caring.)
JPM and Jamie can print $30 billion out of thin air. And if that don't work, how about $3000000 out of thin air?
You're saying, and correct me if I am wrong, Jamie and the other elites understand fully well if the peeps understand the game, and the ruse, including which court it is played on, Dimon and the other elites are going to be lucky to escape the guillotine and concentration camp, or being strung up by their thumbs and wacked into wacker doodle.
"Well laying out the details of Russia's early 20th Century political transformation in less than about a thousand pages is difficult. Carlson is wrong on some details but his main point, I think, remains valid. "
I agree with you CS.
A thousand pages would be required.
A corresponding attention span in the typical audience is not available.
Nor is the corresponding amount of air time available.
However, don't you think we could reasonably expect a better job than Tucker's? He's all over the place. I know I could do better, and I am not a professional journalist or highly compensated political commentator.
It bothers me we both started to accept lying, deception, and chicanery with the facts over the last few years. I did, feeling there was more truth mixed in to these from Tucker and Trump and so forth, than elsewhere.
Yet it really shouldn't be a matter of choosing between liars and cheaters. It is a false choice. Meanwhile, there are so damn many good men and women out there, truly talented, informed, dedicated, competent, decent, we could, be choosing from. I do not believe demanding a choice between such men and women would have to involve any violence or disorder if there was a show of overwhelming dissatisfaction with the present offerings of "sh*t sandwich".
Carlson makes some valid points, which he deploys with the aid of his debater's skill to give the message impact, which draws an audience, and hence the potential for income from advertisers. For example he holds attention with a rapid delivery, plugging potential gaps with fillers such as "you know what I mean", or a brief hysterical laugh. I find his points mostly worth making and I am happy to be entertained.
But this is amusing: Carlson reduced to silent head nodding by Ramaswamy.
I'm pausing here because Tucker has just claimed the US is "technically speaking" bankrupt.
Except, "technically speaking" the USA cannot go bankrupt.
"Technically speaking" the USA can endlessly print its sovereign, fiat currency forever.
Not that it should, nor do I hope it does.
Now Tucker is making what could develop into a valid argument... How US policy makers respond to what's happening in Israel does neet to take into consideration the price of gasoline at the pump throughout the USA.
I don't know if Tucker will successfully do so-- I'm getting there.
So far, I see him as botching it.
He's getting in his conservative dog whistle mode by citing US debt, US bankruptcy, and to top it off "immigrants", either incorrectly or tangentially to the matter at hand. I don't like it. I have always considered you a very solid sceptic and sharply critical thinker, and yet you give Tucker a pass....
Trouble with autocracy is that it generally becomes hereditary, and hence progressively inane, insane or totally corrupt.
Consider:
Prescott Bush, tough guy whose company Brown Bros. Harriman aided Hitler's rise to power, followed by Pappy Bush, aka George H. W. a rather whimpy President, followed by the sadistic punk Dubya.
And the same progression is now evident in Canada: from "just watch me" Pierre to Justin, the dopey, coke sniffing, best bud of the Ukrainian nation-destroying, Zelensky.
"But as for the advantages of monarchy, Putin seems to be demonstrating what those advantages are. In Russia there's no bullshit. Pussy Riot? Bring out the horse whips. Black Lives Matter anyone? You gotta be kidding, those morons would be in jail within a coupla hours."
And,
"Trouble with autocracy is that it generally becomes hereditary, and hence progressively inane, insane or totally corrupt."
Coupling these together, I completely agree.
I predict a very serious succession problem for Russia in the not too distant future. Putin is 71. Not as old as Trump, 77, or Biden, 80, but still...
Putin is a kind of miracle, and it is difficult if not impossible to have two such miracle's in a row. A Putin was not to have arisen from the ashes of the savage 90s era looting and destruction of the former USSR.
(I saw a tremendous Nixon interview advising US leaders to do everything they could to foster nascent Russian democracy and entry into international economic relationships, but his good advice was ignored. What happened instead was, as you say above, " Only if Russia is isolated can it be destroyed as a unified state and transformed into a collection fo Zelensyoid corruptionistans to be looted by US capital." Before Zelensky, of course.
Tucker's got some razzamatazz of history I enjoy. I never understood Wrangel as a russian name, for example. The guy, Wrangel, is a general, and appalled by what his troops are doing.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I agree.
Russia is European in as much as it is geographically so, with Western Russia being on the same European plain as Germany the Baltic republics, etc.
DeleteWrangel (sometimes transliterated as Wrangell or Vrangel, from the Russian Вра́нгель) is, so Google indicates, a Baltic German noble family, whose members have also been included in Swedish, Russian, Spanish and Prussian nobility.
Peter Wrangel was a leader of the white forces-- that means he was a liberal democrat.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tucker saying Peter Wrangel was thus revolutionary.
Russia had been under this or that czar and medieval, way past other parts of Europe, and perhaps this is why the rest of Europe wanted Russia not to be included in Europe.
Tucker asserts Russia is Europe.
Does Tucker understand the problems?
I thought the main reasons for the objection to Russian inclusion in the EU where:
Delete(i) Russia, with twice the population of any other EU nation plus ten times the number of bombs and missiles would inevitably dominate the Union.
(ii) The EU plus Russia would be larger, more resource rich and wealthier than the US meaning an end to US hegemony.
(iii) Only if Russia is isolated can it be destroyed as a unified state and transformed into a collection fo Zelensyoid corruptionistans to be looted by US capital.
Tucker, working from Peter Wrangell's account, talks of Peter going back into Russia, only to see his own men, in uniform, behaving abominably. Raping women is the example Tucker gives.
ReplyDeleteTucker is botching it here.
Tucker believes troops never raped or disobeyed orders until modern times.
I see this as Tucker believing monarchy can be shown to be a superior form of government because everyone knew who the authority was, and what the punishments were, if one disobeyed the authority.
"Tucker believes ..." Does he really say that explicitly. Seems daft.
DeleteBut as for the advantages of monarchy, Putin seems to be demonstrating what those advantages are. In Russia there's no bullshit. Pussy Riot? Bring out the horse whips. Black Lives Matter anyone? You gotta be kidding, those morons would be in jail within a coupla hours.
I consider Tucker daft.
DeleteHe is hard to follow, even if you have a smattering of background knowledge about the subject upon which he lectures. Most of his audience, in my opinion, doesn't. They have to be left in the dark...
What happens is Tucker induces a kind of "cold cloud reading" response in his audience, where some people see Lincoln's profile in the clouds, others, a fluffy lion, and so forth. It is all supported by what they hear being said-- or nothing is supported?
Trump is doing the very same thing. It is very polarizing and at the same time neutralizing. Neutralizing through bewilderment.
Here is from the very beginning: Tucker has read a biography he recommends everyone read. It is about Peter Wrangell, "who was the leader of the revolutionary white forces during the Russian revolution...um, civil war, rather...That came after the revolution. He was a Baltic German [Tucker waives his arms around as if he himself is very confused by himself at this point] living in Russia and a general who worked for the czar ... The war ends or Russia ceases its hostility with Germany...He comes back to St. Petersburg and the country is in complete chaos and the Bolsheviks have decided its discontent in the army we need to inflame. I don't know if this sounds familiar to anyone here, he he, but get the guns and the people who wield them. We need them. So the first thing they do is destroy all discipline in the czar's army, complete. So Peter Wrangell has been on the front for four years and he comes back St. Petersburg totally civilized city, two hours drive from Helsinki, I mean it is Europ...blah blah blah."
He starts out saying
(1) "who was the leader of the revolutionary white forces during the Russian revolution...um, civil war, rather...That came after the revolution."
DeleteThere is a very complicated history of struggle, revolution, World War, civil war, ethnic strife, epochal political upheaval at this time. A very complicated history difficult to comprehend.
Tucker is mixing and matching, swirling and twirling this complicated history, making it not only difficult to comprehend, but incomprehensible.
What is a White Russian? Well, I'll have one right now, though it is only 6:30 a.m. here in Alaska. I'll follow it with a Moscow Mule, or should I say St. Petersburg Mule? After that, straight vodka, please.
Okay, Wrangell was "leader of the revolutionary white forces during the Russian revolution".
Maybe that's the Russian Revolution of 1905. None of us in the audience could guess, at this point.
Or maybe this "Russian revolution" is the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, led by Lenin. Of course. My guess is most of the audience will assume so. I did. I was trying to figure out how a leader of the white russian forces was involved in 1917, but we rush on into yet more tangled befuddlement before I could do so.
It can't anything with any historical exactitude as Tucker references it here, though. Tucker realizes something is wrong and appears to correct himself by now calling it a civil war "rather". I didn't even hear the correction the first time I listened, and I almost never listen to this kind of thing more than once.
Okay, the Russian Civil War. What could that be? Tucker offers it as a correction, but is it a correction or further befuddlement? We must be generous, so try to treat it as a correction we don't understand because we are "even more idiotic than Tucker, that great genius?" There is what is called the February Revolution, of 1917, but that is called a revolution. Not a civil war. It is also overlooked and forgotten in most accounts of this time period. No, it can't be this either.
I have to grab a White Russian, Moscow Mule, and vodka, but hopefully I will be able to come back and pick this apart further. I feel this is a worthwhile exercise, if only for myself. It is better to do it here because I like to make myself open to correction and criticism.
Well laying out the details of Russia's early 20th Century political transformation in less than about a thousand pages is difficult. Carlson is wrong on some details but his main point, I think, remains valid. What is that point? That elites, when threatened, are prone to show sympathy for those who would send them to the guillotine in the hope that they will be treated more leniently. This Tucker implies is the reason for the current toleration of revolutionary behavior of BLM, etc. I think on that he is right.
Delete"What is that point? That elites, when threatened, are prone to show sympathy for those who would send them to the guillotine in the hope that they will be treated more leniently."
DeleteI'll listen again without being so finnicky.
However, I do not believe the elites are the least threatened by any of the crap we're talking about here.
They find it very easy to use that crap to their advantage.
Example:
Jamie Fricken' Dimon, CEO of JP Fricken' Morgan.
He counts as American elite, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was the most powerful man in America.
Gee, Dimon is 67, only two years older than me. I used to be able to take comfort in the time buffer between myself, in my silly anonymity and impotence, and the high and mighty, figuring the many years ahead would take me to where they are.
He sure laughed in the face of Elizabeth Warren, and that was that for Liz. She got exposed for not knowing basketball isn't played outdoors on a field one hundred yards long.
She wasn't even on the right court. She's a lawyer, too.
Okay, I'm on a tangent, so now back to Dimon and BLM.
"Actions Matter. Today, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is making a $30 billion commitment over the next five years to address drivers of the racial wealth divide. We have a collective responsibility to take action to address systemic racism, starting within our own workforce by building a more inclusive environment, and helping Black and Latinx people build small businesses, become homeowners, find an affordable place to live, and improve their financial health."
Mr. Dimon from three years ago-- height of the pandemic? Yep.
"The big Wall Street banks have all talked a good line about supporting the Black Lives Matter movement."
That's the first sentence of this article:
https://ips-dc.org/while-professing-blm-support-wall-street-banks-reject-racial-equity-audits/
Please interpret this article for me and give me the main point, the gist.
My interpretation is Dimon and other elites understand BLM is no real threat to them, and can be mollified as easily as a baby is given a rubber pacifier thingie. (If you compare giving $30 billion "to the cause" with giving a baby a pacifier, there will be indignation, and stern looks suggesting you don't understand real sacrifice or caring.)
JPM and Jamie can print $30 billion out of thin air. And if that don't work, how about $3000000 out of thin air?
You're saying, and correct me if I am wrong, Jamie and the other elites understand fully well if the peeps understand the game, and the ruse, including which court it is played on, Dimon and the other elites are going to be lucky to escape the guillotine and concentration camp, or being strung up by their thumbs and wacked into wacker doodle.
I prefer we not both be right. Not this time.
"Well laying out the details of Russia's early 20th Century political transformation in less than about a thousand pages is difficult. Carlson is wrong on some details but his main point, I think, remains valid. "
DeleteI agree with you CS.
A thousand pages would be required.
A corresponding attention span in the typical audience is not available.
Nor is the corresponding amount of air time available.
However, don't you think we could reasonably expect a better job than Tucker's? He's all over the place. I know I could do better, and I am not a professional journalist or highly compensated political commentator.
It bothers me we both started to accept lying, deception, and chicanery with the facts over the last few years. I did, feeling there was more truth mixed in to these from Tucker and Trump and so forth, than elsewhere.
Yet it really shouldn't be a matter of choosing between liars and cheaters. It is a false choice. Meanwhile, there are so damn many good men and women out there, truly talented, informed, dedicated, competent, decent, we could, be choosing from. I do not believe demanding a choice between such men and women would have to involve any violence or disorder if there was a show of overwhelming dissatisfaction with the present offerings of "sh*t sandwich".
Carlson makes some valid points, which he deploys with the aid of his debater's skill to give the message impact, which draws an audience, and hence the potential for income from advertisers. For example he holds attention with a rapid delivery, plugging potential gaps with fillers such as "you know what I mean", or a brief hysterical laugh. I find his points mostly worth making and I am happy to be entertained.
DeleteBut this is amusing: Carlson reduced to silent head nodding by Ramaswamy.
As for jamie Dimon, BLM etc. I have an idea for a post that is perhaps relevant. I will work on it.
DeleteYou like to be entertained. How can anyone argue against that?
DeleteI am watching Tucker via the link you provided.
DeleteI am at one minute and fifty-four seconds.
I'm pausing here because Tucker has just claimed the US is "technically speaking" bankrupt.
Except, "technically speaking" the USA cannot go bankrupt.
"Technically speaking" the USA can endlessly print its sovereign, fiat currency forever.
Not that it should, nor do I hope it does.
Now Tucker is making what could develop into a valid argument... How US policy makers respond to what's happening in Israel does neet to take into consideration the price of gasoline at the pump throughout the USA.
I don't know if Tucker will successfully do so-- I'm getting there.
So far, I see him as botching it.
He's getting in his conservative dog whistle mode by citing US debt, US bankruptcy, and to top it off "immigrants", either incorrectly or tangentially to the matter at hand. I don't like it. I have always considered you a very solid sceptic and sharply critical thinker, and yet you give Tucker a pass....
....Because he's amusing?
Trouble with autocracy is that it generally becomes hereditary, and hence progressively inane, insane or totally corrupt.
ReplyDeleteConsider:
Prescott Bush, tough guy whose company Brown Bros. Harriman aided Hitler's rise to power, followed by Pappy Bush, aka George H. W. a rather whimpy President, followed by the sadistic punk Dubya.
And the same progression is now evident in Canada: from "just watch me" Pierre to Justin, the dopey, coke sniffing, best bud of the Ukrainian nation-destroying, Zelensky.
"But as for the advantages of monarchy, Putin seems to be demonstrating what those advantages are. In Russia there's no bullshit. Pussy Riot? Bring out the horse whips. Black Lives Matter anyone? You gotta be kidding, those morons would be in jail within a coupla hours."
ReplyDeleteAnd,
"Trouble with autocracy is that it generally becomes hereditary, and hence progressively inane, insane or totally corrupt."
Coupling these together, I completely agree.
I predict a very serious succession problem for Russia in the not too distant future. Putin is 71. Not as old as Trump, 77, or Biden, 80, but still...
Putin is a kind of miracle, and it is difficult if not impossible to have two such miracle's in a row. A Putin was not to have arisen from the ashes of the savage 90s era looting and destruction of the former USSR.
(I saw a tremendous Nixon interview advising US leaders to do everything they could to foster nascent Russian democracy and entry into international economic relationships, but his good advice was ignored. What happened instead was, as you say above, " Only if Russia is isolated can it be destroyed as a unified state and transformed into a collection fo Zelensyoid corruptionistans to be looted by US capital." Before Zelensky, of course.