Tucker recently had an alternative historian on his show (Darryl Cooper, who runs the Martyr Made podcast) to expound on his view of the genesis of WWII, namely that Winston Churchill was a villainous figure. His twitter thread made after the show does a decent job of summarizing that point.
Obviously any suggestion that Hitler was not 100% Satan incensed the boomer right, provoking febrile emotional reactions like this one from Billboard Chris. The likes of Seth Dillon are also making their favorite call for "moral clarity," which I just read as "die for Israel" these days.
At the same time, a couple people made some decent counterpoints, namely that Hitler invaded a lot of countries at the time he was supposedly suing for peace. This is the problem with calling Churchill "the chief villain," which Cooper walked back into "a chief villain" on X.
Overall, the controversy is a good thing for the right. Tucker is softening up the ironclad boomer mythology of WWII - when you delve deeper into the motivations of the belligerents, you eventually delve into the question of, "so where did the Nazis get all this animus against Jews?" and "why is the Holocaust the greatest tragedy when 14 million Asians were killed by Japan and 20 million Ukrainians were killed in the Holodomor?" Also, blue laser eyes/red tint profile pics are gay.
It's the same reason most people would recoil if you were to tell most people you are reading Mein Kampf. They are trained to fear seeking alternative points of view. I don't know anything about this guy, and I at least hope if Carlson has him on there's more substance behind it then just wild conspiracy.
There's only something to fear from listening to others if your stance isn't the right one. If you're standing on solid ground, why be afraid?
I've always been curious as to what's actually in that book but I don't want to end up on every government list in existence by trying to search for it.
You can literally buy it at many book stores or rent it from the library.
Most of it is ideological ranting about jews. It's not a particularly good read, tbh. Like, literally, as an author, he doesn't right very well.
I've heard mixed opinions on the quality and accuracy of many of its translations. Which makes sense given how controversial it is.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't apply at least a little bias into such a task, from one extreme or another.
Honestly, get 2 and contrast.
There's a lot of different versions. It's quite a common book, tbh.
Choose ones from different decades if you're concerned.
Unlike translating from other languages from centuries ago, this is modern german. The context is pretty clear. Not to mention, he's pretty clear. He's ranting, but he's not vague. When he's talking about the trade-unionists, he's talking about the trade-unionists. He's not talking about anything else. And he'll rant about trade unionists and why trade unionism doesn't work, or isn't real socialism, for several pages. You kinda can't miss his intent. I'll grant that "Gleichschaltung" or the like are words that were adopted into political vocabulary and weren't naturally occurring before the NSDAP. So, we actually have to use phrases and words that convey their political meaning in the context. So instead of "Gleichschaltung" we might say "synchronization" or "coming together" or "solidification", or something like that but you should be able to get the context cues to know well enough what he's talking about.
Hell, get the native german and contrast if it's really a concern. I'm sure there's a free PDF of the original german.