Tucker and Candace Put America Second — and Their Hate First

 This piece is a provocative, highly opinionated political essay critiquing the ideological evolution of figures like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, while drawing sharp distinctions between "America First" nationalism and what the author sees as dangerous misinterpretations of that principle. Initially defending Tucker Carlson, the author now accuses him of embracing a "Hate First" mindset, allegedly rooted in antisemitism and naive isolationism, particularly regarding Iran.

The essay also outlines a broad historical and political analysis of neo-Nazism, neoconservatism, and American interventionism, asserting a clear position: military action is justified against existential threats like Iran, but not for vague regime changes or ideological nation-building.

It is rhetorically combative, laced with sarcasm, sweeping generalizations, and loaded language — sure to provoke strong reactions from across the political spectrum.

America First vs. Hate First

• The essay distinguishes between true "America First" patriotism and what the author perceives as "Hate First" disguised as nationalism.

• Argues that Tucker Carlson has shifted from principled non-interventionism to a form of antisemitic, anti-American hostility, masked as realism.

Media Personalities and Ideological Shifts

• Criticizes Candace Owens for antisemitism.

• Originally defended Tucker Carlson, but now sees him as a "kook" undermining American interests through misapplied isolationism.

• Accuses Carlson of aligning with known bigots and anti-Western voices, including Putin and Holocaust deniers.

Iranian Threat

• Strongly advocates for preemptively bombing Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, framing it as a necessary act of self-preservation.

• Contends that Israel’s interest in stopping Iran’s nuclear program is not just Israel First, but ultimately America First.

Neocons vs. Neo-Nazis

• Defines neocons as disillusioned liberals drawn to Reagan-era interventionism.

• Uses a sarcastic, satirical tone to compare modern neo-Nazis to bumbling imitators who thrive on conspiracies about Jewish power.

Foreign Policy Doctrine

• Rejects foreign regime change and "forever wars" unless there’s a direct existential threat to the U.S.

• Criticizes past U.S. involvements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, seeing them as neocon misadventures.

• Argues that non-interventionism must not extend to ignoring clear threats, like Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Immigration and Globalism

• Harshly criticizes U.S. immigration policy, especially the Democratic Party’s historical and current stance on Hispanic immigration.

• Claims mass immigration is used as a tool to shift political power toward a permanent Democratic majority.

• Dismisses Europe's approach to refugee resettlement, calling it suicidal and destructive.

Strategic Alliance with Israel

• Frames Israel as a strategic ally doing the "dirty work" that protects American lives.

• Emphasizes that American military aid to Israel is an incredibly cost-effective defense investment, especially compared to past global wars.

This piece is not an academic or dispassionate analysis, but a sharply polemical essay rooted in deeply held ideological beliefs. Its effectiveness will likely depend on the reader's prior stance: supporters may see it as a bold truth-telling manifesto; critics will likely view it as inflammatory and conspiratorial.

https://spectator.org/tucker-and-candace-put-america-second-and-their-hate-first/