Roger Waters Explains Julian Assange to Tucker Carlson

28 thoughts on “Roger Waters Explains Julian Assange to Tucker Carlson”

  1. Actually the people complicit in war crimes should be the ones sweating it out, not Assange! The world doesn’t need Assange to know that war crimes are ALWAYS committed in a war. The most important thing should be the LEGALITY of the wars themselves! All those Congressmen and “leaders” in government who turn a blind eye to mass murder are ALL war criminals. That’s the reality here, not that soldiers in war display the most inhumane behavior when put in that position by their commanders! Arrest the leaders, not the ones doing their dirty work.

    1. Not just the legality but the senselessness of the wars. They’re fought for profit and special interests (like Israel). They’re fought for global domination and ideology (spreading the latest “rights,” by force).

      They are not fought out of necessity nor even in US interests. Large amounts of money vanish, without justification. So, it’s not simply the business of supplying for a war but also of disappearing large amounts of money. Afghans as well take the money, corruption everywhere.

  2. Roger Waters teaching my mom about press freedom on Fox News is officially one of the weirdest moments in television history. Tucker may be a dick, but you wouldn’t see this sh*t anywhere else.

        1. No — lots of people support Palestinian rights without using bigotry and bigoted tropes.

          In fact, lots of Zionists also support a Palestinian state — if it could be done peacefully. Lots of Zionists spent years trying to obtain a two-state peace; and it was Zionists who agreed to it outright as far back as 1948

          Waters is a bigot because he employees bigotry and demonization — and he seeks ultimately the destruction of any refuge state for the Jewish minority.

          1. the use of bigoted tropes is bigotry.

            he’s displayed pigs with Jewish stars next to dollar signs

            he speaks about Jews “controlling” others and once compared us to alien “body snatchers”

            He claims that people who object to antisemitism are themselves antisemitic in doing so

            he resorts to insane level demonization, such as trying to compare Israeli Jews to “nazis”

          2. He speaks ill of Zionists, not Jews. There is a big difference. Many Jews despise Zionism. There is also nothing extreme about noting that Israel is a racial nationalist autocracy, not unlike Nazi Germany.

          3. very few Jews “despise Zionism” because most all Jews understand Zionism as Jewish Liberation.

            it’s only a tiny few of very privileged Jews who – like the German Jews of the 1920’s — don’t believe our collective self-defense is necessary. Even in the USA, the most privileged society on the planet with the most assimilated Jewish population — polls show 85% of the Jewish population are strong supporters of the Jewish State. when you move into other countries where Jews face more risks and have a better grasp of the dangers, the percentage of supporters is much higher.

            As for Israel, there is zero “racial” about it’s make up. Israeli society consists of every race on the planet. That’s just another bigoted canard you are spreading. It was the Russians who invented the false “Zionism=Racism” charge back when the Russians were throwing Jews into the Gulags.

            Israel is also not at all close to an “autocracy” — as every single Israel regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender has an equal vote — and the politicians have voices in the context of a hotly contested give and take in the Knesset.

            Finally, your claim that this non-racial hotly contested democratic nation is “not unlike Nazi Germany” just exposes your personal bigotry.

            That sort of demonization of a tiny minority is why we absolutely need the Jewish State.

    1. But Tucker is not a dick. In fact, wasn’t it Roger Waters who was the dick in the band Pink Floyd? I always liked Gilmour’s leads.

      1. I’ve always preferred Syd Barret personally. Tucker is great on a lot of issues, specifically foreign policy. But he’s absolutely obnoxious in his treatment of immigrants and trans people like myself.

        1. Piper at the Gates of Dawn is my go-to album when I’m wanting to hear from Floyd. If I’m not mistaken, that’s the only album Syd was completely involved in.

          Carlson used to occasionally talk like a libertarian. Then he smelled money in the paleo/Trump cesspool and dived in head first. Hasn’t been worth a plug nickel since.

          1. Debatable. I’m down with paleos, I just wish they’d realize that they’re as weird and subversive as the hippies, yippies and queers they frequently bash and lighten up a tiff.

            I like Barret’s solo sh*t, after he went crackers. Floyd never really did it for me.

          2. Big business wants open borders, so that’s not necessarily “subversive.”

            Paleos seem to want localism and decentralisation. So, my understanding of a paleo society is it might include redlight zones within communities. So, porn and other things might be banned in general society (also no annoying billboard advertising to disrupt the beauty of a society), but then some things would be allowed in areas.

            An interesting trend in right-wing twitter lately is the theory that prostitution is less evil than porn, because supposedly many young people, especially men, have become “incel”. The idea is that if guys are at least interacting with other humans, then they’ll take better care of themselves, better learn how to interact with others, and eventually develop into healthy adults with families.

            Sam Francis, as I recall, used to mock, in his writing, how conservatives tend to look at porn.

            There are a variety of related, interesting topics.

            If I’m trying to stick to my diet, I keep junk food out of my house, which is tough if not single. But I still like the option of eating what’s unhealthy outside my home. So, I think creating regions like that has value.

            In Charleston, the oldest masonry structure is a whore house, the “Pink House.” Soft drinks, donuts, alcohol, tobacco: One can’t ban everything, everywhere.

            The Bible is clear on gays, but it’s equivalently clear on adultery. And most everyone in society who isn’t married, and many who are, commits adultery, at least other than the incels. And sitting at home looking at porn doesn’t seem too Christian.

            It can be odd talking about such issues at length, because it makes one seem perverted oneself. However, it seems to me that if banning everything entirely, everywhere, then it just leads to an impossible situation. That’s why we can’t ban alcohol, for the most part. As the resident anarchist mod would argue, banning drugs in general creates many problems in general, such as the drug lords in Central and South America.

          3. Sex-workers curing incels pretty much sums up the necessity for solidarity in a nutshell. That sounds beautiful to me. The Amish offer a great example of ethical conservatism. They literally live in another century but refuse to push these beliefs even on their own children. They give them a few years to wild out in the English world and then decide which to be a part of. Most kids get nuts and then return home by choice. Anarchism is neither left nor right. Anarchism is for everyone. In their own unique way, the Amish are anarchists. Their better at it than most leftists.

          4. Dr. Fleming is where I got the idea of tolerating a sort of red light district. And if he read me write that, he’d probably get angry, because he seemed to frequently get angry over being misunderstood. But regardless, that was my understanding of something he wrote, years ago.

            However, some sex workers seem to be forced into it; that couldn’t be tolerated, of course. Supposedly that sort of thing goes on even in the US, girls being forced into it. An anarchist might argue that banning it creates potential demand, which is then filled illegally, leading to abuse of young girls. But there would, nevertheless, be a right way to legalise things.

            We can say government action and laws often create problems, even perhaps more problems than they solve, without asserting that complete anarchy is better.

            Not pushing one’s ways, like the Amish, is a good policy. The “English” seem to believe we own the world and have to care for the world.

            But I question whether anarchism, as you call it, could have enabled Ulster Scot farmers and Amerindian semi-hunters to live in proximity. I’m “against” past annexation of all manner of things, but an ideal has to be applicable in the real world. We’re humans, not saints; and even your anarchism could be argued to view man as overly good. We’re fallen, and whatever is right must take our true nature into account.

          5. It is precisely because we are humans, not saints that we can’t afford to vest power in the state. The point of anarchism is that far from being “overly good,” man can’t be trusted to not abuse power over others.

          6. Exactly. And whatever difficulties there are in imperfect people determining their own course of action, these pale in comparison to the difficulties inherent in imperfect people ruling others.

            “If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one. ”

            ― Robert LeFevre

          7. redlight zones within communities

            Boston tried that back in the Eighties – “The Combat Zone”.
            Walked through it once… Terrifying!
            I understand it is no more.

          8. Tom pretty much summed it up already. I would just add one of my all time favorite quotes from Rudolph Rocker-
            “I am not an anarchist because I believe it’s the final solution. I am an anarchist because I believe there is no final solution.”

            Society does require revision and regulation. Small communities are just far better equipped to evolve organically than permanent institutions of force.

          9. He talked Trump out of starting WW3 after Iran downed that drone. Gotta give him props for that.

        2. “But he’s absolutely obnoxious in his treatment of immigrants and trans people like myself.”

          That pretty much goes with the Fox News territory, or at least did many years ago when I would occasionally tune in. It’s been so long since I’ve actually watched a cable news show, that I really don’t even know who the stars are.

          1. Just a comment on the comment you made up above to Luch about the Amish: You are absolutely correct about anarchism not being left or right. In the modern day statist context, left wingers are those who wish to use state violence to coerce the people into adopting left wing values, while right wingers are those who wish to use state violence to coerce the people into adopting right wing values. Without the coercive violence of the state present, such concepts have no meaning.

  3. In the video, Waters reveals that Assange did not endanger US troops. Yet, we heard this claim for months. I’m sick of the lies. How can anyone believe the US government & mass media at this point?

Comments are closed.