The Daily Beast Podcast - Tucker Carlson Thinks Alex Jones Is a Supernatural Prophet

Episode Date: May 12, 2024

he former Fox News host went all woo woo during a recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Plus! Danielle Moodie speaks with historian Federico Finchelstein about his new book The Wannabe Fascists: A Guide to Understanding the Greatest Threat to Democracy and how Trumpism and similar movements across the world belong to a new political breed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy and current Campbell News conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Kedden, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. Welcome back to another bonus episode of The New Abnormal, and we thank you so much for being here.

Today we're joined by author Frederico Finkelstein to talk about his new book, The Wannaby Fascist, a guide to understanding the greatest threats to democracy. But first, let's have some fun. Are you guys ready to listen to some clips? Clips. Danielle, we talked about this. Clips. You know, like our yearly performance reviews that we definitely get here at this job. I think the enthusiasm one, Danielle, is looking a little bad for you.

Wow, that was something. So, Incelkig dash white supremacist, power arounder, Elon Musk, and then the former president, Mr. Trump, and Majority Leader Mike Johnson are trying to make that millions of illegal immigrants are voting a thing. And a journalist asked Mike Johnson what proof he had. And as always, he came with his usual competence and preparedness for the job he has. Can't wait. No. So I show on the first question, I mean, the answer is that it's unanswerable. That is the problem.

States are not allowed right now to prove if somebody claims on that simple form that they're a citizen, they can vote. They're not allowed to prove whether it's true or not. We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it's not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number. This legislation will allow us to do exactly that. It will prevent that from happening. And if someone tries to do it, it will now be unlawful, and the states will have a mechanism to prove whether they are or not. And to suggest that this is some sort of revenge tour is kind of a silly notion.

What we are doing... Every word of that was untrue. I don't. It was a salary. of crap. I couldn't find my way through that. He probably caught it for Mr. Trump. I mean, we do have stats, and the numbers are insanely low.

It's like single digits in most elections. It's already illegal, so you don't need another bill to do anything about it. But, you know, we've talked about this before. This is theater. This is pure theater. And just every word he said was a lie. After the 2016 election, I think it was the Brennan. It was the Brennan Center.

Out of 23.5 million votes cast, there were around 30 instances of voting by possible non-citizens, possible. 30 out of 23.5 million. You mean not 30 million? I mean not 30 million. I mean 30. Not 30,000? No, 30, Danielle.

Okay, just making sure. And that was possible non-citizens. So it might be lower. It might be zero. And even Georgia, which makes it really hard to vote these days, in 2022, 1,600 non-citizens attempted to register to vote over 25 years. None of them were successful. None of them were successful. So you can look at stats all day and for him to get up there and say, we don't know the numbers and we don't have the statistics is absolute bullshit.

Once again, these are these people who are like these super religious people who won't stop talking. talking to you about their religion, they missed the whole commandment about not bearing false witness. And I don't understand it. Yeah, I mean, I'm pretty convinced that this is now just that they figured out that they get in trouble when they say great replacement theory and that this is just their, um, coy way of messaging that and some Frank Luntz modern day bullshit. Yeah, that sounds about it. Well, we now have a newly anointed podcast toast and professional bullshitter Kelly Ann Conway. She's, I know. What are you doing to us, Jess?

And this was hard for me to even get through it. Well, you know, I try to be enthusiastic. Well, here she comes. There's no question this year. Abortion could be a vote multiplier and a turnout intensifier for the Democrats. It basically is all they have. Maybe you could throw an electric vehicle here and there, a little bit of climate change, but that's about it.

It's mainly abortion. But Joe Biden, Sean, he's gone the opposite way of science. He's a science denier. Over time, we have learned so much more about to say, Statational Development sonograms, we know what we see. Joe Biden, the rest of them have become science and deniers. The left runs around science, facts, science and facts. And they look at a sonogram of a five-month-old,

and they pretend they don't see the male organ, the baby's sucking its thumb and waving at mom and dad. I'd like to say congratulations to David Pluff. Yep. Yep, yep. You couldn't have chosen a better podcast, co-host. Just unbelievable. It's just like everyone who decides to take.

team up with everyone that is in these sea suites that say like, oh, yes, let's bring this Republican liar on. Oh, yes. Let's bring this election denier on. Oh, yes. Let's bring this person that coined the term alternative facts and let me link arms with them just to show how, you know, both sides really do have an effective and thoughtful ideology as it pertains to America. They don't. Kelly Ann Conway is a fucking. liar. She is so dangerous to our country, to the narrative that she spun around Donald Trump that allowed him the cover to do the bullshit that he did. You know, I know that we're not in this segment, but fuck David Pluff. Like, honestly, you are just so embarrassing as a Democrat. I cannot

believe that anyone had uplifted your like strategy and thoughtfulness as it pertained to Obama. and this is what you do with the good graces that you were given? My God, what an embarrassment. Yeah, I just, I don't usually say this, but I hope that podcast rots in hell. I don't know, guys. I was scrolling through Facebook the other day, and I saw a baby wave at me on a sonogram, one of my friends posted personally. Oh.

Yeah, because that's the thing. Okay, well, we're going to now take a funner turn, but the bat shit and the bullshit is going to go real wild here. Here we have a clip from the Joe Rogan podcast, a place where thought goes to die. Fact checking is anything posted on a 4-shed message board. And it had Tucker Carlson on this weekend. I'm going to say things get pretty wild. To give context before this clip, because I don't want to play too much of it,

this is them saying that Alex Jones predicted 9-11 like a psychic. How'd that happen? Right. How did he do that? No, he's channeling something. You think so? Yeah, of course. Yeah.

There's like no other, I mean, tell me how he did it. Otherwise, I've asked him about it. How did you do that at lengthy at dinner in my barn recently? We're talking about this. How did you do that? I don't know. It just came to me. And that's real.

That is real. The supernatural is real. And I don't know why it's so hard for the modern mind, because it's a materialist mind, to accept that. But what you see, and that's not a new phenomenon. It's happened throughout history. There are people called prophets. And there are people who were prophets who weren't called prophets, but there are people who have information or parts of information, bits of information,

visions of information come to them and then they relay it. How'd that happen? Right. How did he do that? No, he's channeling something. That's super, yeah, of course. Yeah. There's like no other, I mean, tell me how he did it otherwise.

Oh, my God. Listen, Al-Gai, Tucker Carlson. This is the same Alex Jones that was sued, right, by the families of, the Newtown children that were killed? Yes, that was his main pursuit when he wasn't talking about frogs being gay, yes. Okay, so this is the same guy that called those families victim actors,

like, and this is what Tucker Carlson is upholding as some type of prophet and prophecy? Well, they just had dinner in his barn, Daniel. I hope they ate shit. I just want to point out that Alex Jones predicting 9-11 was Alex Jones earlier that year saying that the government is planning terrorism and saying there was going to be a false flag attack, just like the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

That was his prediction of 9-11. Who could have known after they already attacked at once, and Rudolph Giuliani moved the command centers over to there? Yeah. So for Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan to sit there and act like. he predicted 9-11. No, he didn't. He said there was going to be a false flag attack that the Bush administration was behind. And that was his prediction. I seem to recall he made a lot of documentaries on how 9-11 was an inside job and things like that. Like, oh, yeah. Numerous because,

boy, were those all over Facebook back of the day. Yep. I would say, though, that if anybody else said this quote, you know what Alex Jones would be saying about him? False flag. That person, what did they know it? When did they know it? All right. Well, this week, President Biden gave out the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award people like Nancy Pelosi and Matthew Shepard's mother. And Fox News was shockingly not thrilled. So they offered some alternative nominees. Some suggestions. I did have a list of some suggestions. What do you like? So here's who I. Okay. I think.

thought America's frat boys, they could use the medal of freedom. Donald J. Trump, he never gives up on America. Elon Musk for absolutely caring about freedom of speech. How about the truly peaceful protesters of the pro-life movement, the ones that are in jail right now? Kid Rock and John Rich, we know they love freedom. Riley Gaines, the classical school movement. You and I can appreciate that. And how about our U.S. Border Patrol?

Oh, that's a great list. Take care about America. I'm the guys that cleared out Columbia. I'd like to add them too. Whatever you... I mean, but it's probably more likely to go to Paul Pelosi, Susan Rice, and Gavin Newsom. So I think your list is correct, but a little off-brand for Big Joe. Rachel.

Yeah, this is what? This is Pete Hagseth and Rachel Campos Duffy. Just unbelievable. There's no bottom. I mean, we keep saying it. I don't know what else to say. There's just there's no bottom. For Rachel Campos Duffy to make a joke about Paul Pelosi and a hammer after what happened to him.

Again, you can't shame people who have no shame, so I don't even know what to say. I mean, what I will say is she's an asshole. Everyone that was listed out in her freedom medal wannabes are either in jail or are criminals or violent people. So again, like, don't have to mince work. don't have to wonder who they value and what they value, but it isn't anything that has to do with freedom. It is the freedom to oppress, the freedom to cause harm, the freedom to violate, the freedom to be as disgusting as you so choose. It's just they are vile, like vile, vile, vile human beings. Yeah, and I just want to say like she led with America's frat boys,

and that was a reference to what happened. I think oldness was it, where a bunch of fratians boys were sort of doing an anti-Palestinian demonstration or they were gathered around a demonstration. And one of them was making like a gorilla or ape noises at a black woman, the female black student, who was part of the protest. These are the people that she thinks should get the Medal of Freedom. By the way, that guy got kicked out of his frat at Ole Miss. Like that was too much even for a fraternity at Ole Miss, but not too much. Not for Fox.

For Fox News and good old Rachel Campos Duffy. Yeah, real pick-me energy coming from that one. Yeah. Also, the Frat Boys thing, I think, was a way of sucking up to Jesse Waters. It's true. This was on a fill-ed slot for Waters World. Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal. The author of the book The Wannabe Fascist, Federico Finkelstein,

who has written a guide to understanding the greatest, threat to democracy. Federico, thank you so much for joining the new abnormal. Talk to us. What is a wannabe fascist? What is your definition of that? Yes, well, thank you for having me. A wannabe fascist is a person, a leader, actually, of a movement that is approaching

fascism, but it's not yet there. And in my book, I explained the distinctions between populism and fascism and why the one of a fascist is in an in-between situation between the two and rapidly approaching fascism. What is the difference, as you say, between a populist and a fascist, and do they have defining characteristics that overlap? Yes, I mean, I'm an story of both fascism and populism, and I have been answering these questions in different studies. And yet, outside of the academy, I'm always asked this question of what is fascism, and more specifically, is Trump a fascist. So I thought, okay, I need to really bring it down to a couple of elements, a definition.

that could provide us with a guide in order to judge and decide also in terms of our own political decisions, whether we are approaching a fascism-dangered situation or not. Let's say this. The difference between the four pillars of fascism and populism is that populism is a form of authoritarian democracy. And fascism is always against democracy. And the answer is historical because after 1945, after the peace of Mussolini and Hitler and, you know, and fascism as an ideology,

Being tripolar, the war became bipolar in terms of if it was before a kind of contest between three bigisms, I mean fascism, liberalism and socialism, and socialism. The war became, as everybody knows, a kind of big contest between the US and the Soviet Union and the Iranians. Now, the point is, what happened to the fascists? They were not only defeated, but they also, many among them, authoritarian, want to be dictators, even dictators. They wanted to continue what they saw as a third position, a number three position, between capitalism and communism. They did it by other means. That is to say, if fascists were before against democracy, populists were former fascists and authoritarian,

that they wanted to somehow make democracy authoritarian without destroying. So that is a big distinction between fascism and populism and the first, I mean, actually the last of the four pillars of fascism, which is to say that, Fascism is always against democracy and fascism is for dictatorship. So when you want to distinguish between a populist demagogic leader and a fascist, this is one key element that you need to think about. Are these people for permanent power? Do these people recognize electoral results?

Are these people into elections and in free, free, fair elections and do their outcome? Fascists never accepted elections as a sort of legitimacy. populist did. Now, for going on on the three other elements, the four pillars of fascism, which make the distinction or establish a distinction between populism and fascism, I would like to remind, you know, your audience about a key historical moment. As basically everybody knows, fascism, and I should highlight it here in this context of your question, fascism uses democratic means to destroy democracy from within. That's what Hitler and Mussolini did.

So they used democracy to destroy democracy from within. They even participate in elections, eventually reaching power, and then creating a coup d'etat from a bog, destroying democracy from within. After 1945, populists did the opposite. And they first did it in Latin America, leaders like Juan Domingo Peron, the creator of peronism in Argentina, or Jetulio Vargas in Brazil, and many others. What these people did, I mean, actually Peron was the first. strong man in a dictatorship that had military dictatorship that had ruled the country between 43 and

and 46 and Vargas had been a dictator in Brazil. What these people did is the opposite of what the fascist is. They destroy dictatorship from within in order to create authoritarian democracy from above. That's populism, authoritarian democracy. Let's say fascism adapted to democracy, fascism in a democratic key, which is to say it's not fascism. Now, the four elements of fascism, I already talk about one of them is dictatorship. There is no fascism without dictatorship. There is no fascism with this idea of remaining in power, notwithstanding electoral results,

actually denying elections. My book actually is divided in four chapters, these four elements. The last chapter is the one on dictatorship. I analyze there people like Mussolini, people like Peron, and yes, people like Trump or Bolsonaro. I mean, trying to analyze the distinctions. I mean, and why Trump and Bolsonaro are one of a fascist.

They are populists. They are populists that want to be. attend to move in this kind of social direction. Now, let me go back to these three other elements to answer your question, actually. The four elements of fascism are violence and the militarization of politics, number one. Number two, the politics of xenophobia, this extreme demonization that usually involves racism, that's number two. And number three is lies and propaganda.

Fascists lie and create this photo of whirl and totalitarian propaganda that is distinctive from other regimes when it's coupled together with these four elements. So, of course, you can have racism without fascism, you can have propaganda, totalitarian propaganda without fascism, you can have dictatorship without fascism, and you can have violence and globalization of politics, that's the other element, without fascism. But fascism can only exist when you have these four elements together. So there is no fascism without dictatorship, there is no fascism without violence

and the militarization of politics. There is no fascism without totalitarian propaganda, and there is no fascism without demonization and racism. So these four elements. I mean, let me backtrack and put them again, you know, just to make it clear. Violence and the militarization of politics, number one. Number two, lies and totalitarian propaganda. I want to pause one second and ask you about the lies and the propaganda piece.

And the reason why I want to pause here is because what I have realized, Federico, is that it is not just about the propaganda and the lies that are coming out of, say, the mouths of Donald Trump and his acolytes and the Republican Party in this country as I'm looking at it. It's also what the media, what the mainstream media is not telling us, is not sharing with us, is not making explicit about the things that are happening. We keep talking about in mainstream media about, oh, Trump is, he wants to be a dictator on day one, or, you know, he's showing fascist tendencies, or he's a this, that, or the other thing. But they're not explicitly, as your book does, saying, no, this is what fascism looks like. This is what the rise of fascism looks like. This is

how a country, step by step, begins to give away its democratic principles in way of a fascistic movement. And so in order for this to happen, the lies and the propaganda, would you say that the media would then have to be complicit? Well, I mean, you're making really good points. And I basically agree with, you know, many, many things that you just suggested. I mean, the question is, and, you know, in my chapter on lies and propaganda, I analyze this question in terms of Trump, yes, but also in terms of previous, you know, precedence to Trump, including a discussion about whether it was okay. at the time to interview Mussolini or to interview Hitler. I mean, are you asking questions? Were journalists asking questions or were they inadvertently, even without being complicit, inadvertently just spreading, replicating the leader's propaganda? And this is a question

that, you know, of course, comes to before when journalism is addressing the really difficult question of reporting on Trump, whether interviewing Trump and how to do it. So I address these questions in the book because we have to be careful when we analyze Trump's statements and Trump's ideology in general because propaganda and lies are not lateral and important things, but rather they shape what Trump is amiss. So this is a question that needs to be acknowledged. It's not a question of a middle, established in a sort of middle ground between different political positions. When you analyze a politician that is constantly lying for the sake of his cult of personality and more generally and more ideologically his attempt to really

downgrade if not destroy American democracy. So this is important. I mean, this is something that it cannot be ignored in the sense that Trump says, yes, a dictatorship on day one. And we know from experience that we should not better than ignore what he says, that many times he means what he says. In that sense, whether completed or without realization, there is a risk always of, you know, replicating this propaganda without addressing it critical. Addressing fantasies via empirical observations is not taking a political position for the other time, whatever that might be. Because we talked about this last week on The New Abnormal, which was Time Magazine's

interview of Donald Trump. You know, they had him on the cover and they didn't interview with him where they very clearly asked detailed questions about what a second Trump administration would look like. and he, in no one's certain terms, laid out very much, as they referred to it, an imperial America, reshaping not only America and as we understand it, but also its global standing in the world as a crusader, if you will, for democracy. In that interview for me, I said, this is important journalism, because they're asking really critical questions, but they're also laying out for the audience, what is really important to understand about what he's saying here.

And I think that it's critical when you're at what I believe we are in in these United States, which is a tipping point moment as to whether or not we continue with the 250-year project of American democracy or we don't. I wonder in your chapter when you talk about dictators, tell us about what is important to know and understand through history about how dictators rise and the fact that this isn't something that then, it's not as if elections per se will go away, but their value goes away. They have elections. They just don't matter. Can you explain the importance of understanding what a dictatorship means? Well, I mean, dictators should be in general, fascism in particular means an attempt, which of course when it becomes a permanent dictatorship is

a successful attempt, to eliminate the distinction between what is public and what is a particular, private and to eliminate the distinction between journalism and state propaganda. So basically in a dictatorship, I mean, in addition to, of course, eliminate the distinction between legality and the will of the dictator. I mean, all these are different aspects of the same, which is, you know, no more freedom, as we know it. Of course, no more political rights and many other rights, including the law and some of the case is the right to leave, eliminated.

And of course, we have the Holocaust in the most extreme case of fascism, which is Nazis. Now, of course, it's a question of gradation, and, you know, when we are not talking about extremes, or we are talking about the beginning of something that could be extremely dangerous, even if it doesn't become, you know, as extreme. Because it implies the inability for citizens to decide on their own, and once decisions between the public and the private and, you know, propaganda and reality are eliminated, then nobody participates anymore in decisions that are totally reddened. delegated to the leader. And this is what the leader wants. So the leader constantly lies and wants to

establish his lies and even worse. In the case of Nazism, you know, I always talk about this example. I wrote a previous book on a brief history of fascist life. And in this book, I also analyze this question of propaganda. I mean, on the chapter on lies on propaganda. Again, a pillar of fascism. You, as you know, Nazis lie that Jews were dirty and spread diseases. This was a horrible lie. I mean, a horrible kind of deadly fantasy. And why did it? Because not only they lied, but they did as much as they could in order for this

lie to become a reality. So of course, they persecuted Jewish citizens. They put them in ghettos and concentration camps in horrible sanitary conditions, and these poor victims eventually became dirty and spread disease. So, I mean, it's a kind of ideological perversion in which not only they deny reality, but they want to change reality. And they would like the world to become something similar or akin to their lives.

I mean, and I think during the time of COVID, we saw something like this in people like Bolsonaro. They constantly lied about disease. They constantly, you know, lie about magical cures. Bolsonaro, for example, even said that taking vaccines could turn people into cocoa dry or people, you know, of course he saw this in a very negative manner. I mean, defining or representing the ones,

want to be fascist their teeth, but who can become gay if they get vaccinated. Of course, Bolsonaro thinks that that's something that it really bad, basically having freedom to decide whatever you want to be. In the case of Bolsonaro, the Brazilian people fought back and elected another leader, and Bolsonaro has been investigated, has been indicted, will stand trial for his criminal activity. Is there another space where you have seen a nation? that was backsliding into fascism, into a dictatorship that was able to reverse that backsliding? Yes.

So with a matter of concern and, you know, and I will have resistance because we should remember in the case of Brazil that, you know, Bolsonaro was defeated by a slim marching and also by a very proactive Supreme Court that saw from the gatego that Bolsonaro was not taking a political position, But rather, his position represented an attempt to destroy the Constitution. And that story is not over in Brazil. There are a lot of people that support Bolsonaro. And, you know, it's an issue which, of course, represents a struggle for the defense of democracy. Now, of course, we have historical cases.

Different countries decided not to go in a fascist way. And let me tell you a couple of things that I think are important to remember what is important in this regard. When countries decided to resist fascist attempts, and actually defeat fascist attempts. The security force is the judiciary, and yes, the conservative right, decided to side with the constitution and legality rather than with the wannabe fascist dictator. When people protested, when independent journalism was defended for its central role in a democracy, when people voted and when discussion was intense and alive,

those were moments when fascism wouldn't thrive and actually would be defeated. So I mean, it's important to remember, of the member, in my opinion, this, because it's not a given fact. First, that, you know, one of a fascists will win, and second, that they can succeed in doing what they want to do. In the book, I explain why they are way more hesitant that their predecessors, that Trump is constantly wavering, that Bolsonaro was constantly wavering in terms of trying to accomplish what we want to accomplish. Yeah. Well, Federico, we will leave it there today. I thank you so much. This was incredibly insightful. And folks, the book is the wannabe fascists, a guide to understanding the

greatest threat to democracy. Really appreciate you and hope that you will come back and join us again on The New Abnormal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and James Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh,

and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.