On October 25th, Tucker Carlson invited onto his program Jewish author Sasha Polakow-Suransky to discuss the main thrust of his latest book Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy. And, you guessed it, its thrust was aimed against the Right, in particular, against White Nationalists and the anti-immigration Right.
Tucker sums his guest up thusly:
The biggest threat against democracy isn’t Jihadism or mass immigration from non-western societies. Instead, the greatest threat, he says, is right-wing politicians exploiting public hostility to new arrivals. And that, he says, will destroy free society.
Okay, stop reading. Watch the video. Or perhaps you don’t need to. If you are a regular Counter-Currents reader, you probably already know where this is going. I really don’t have to tell you. In fact, all the thoughts and emotions I have swirling around in my head, most readers of this article have swirling around in theirs. This scenario has played itself out so many times now you can now see the plot points coming like in a bad screenplay.
Act I: Jews enter America and, like any non-violent ethnic minority, face mild discrimination at the hands of the native whites. They retaliate by subverting the folkways of whites and using all their money and influence to invite as many non-whites into America as possible. By the end of the 1960s, with the expansive 1965 Immigration Bill and the death of segregation in the Jim Crow South, they succeed. And Jews cheer this on.
Act II: Non-whites are now threatening to outnumber whites. Jews cheer this on. Non-whites vote in large blocs for the increasingly liberal and leftist Democrat Party. Jews cheer this on. Whites are being told that dysgenic phenomena such as miscegenation and homosexuality good things. Jews cheer this on. White children are being taught that everything about them and their history is bad. Jews cheer this on. All talk of racial differences in IQ becomes forbidden in public discourse. Jews cheer this on. Non-whites, especially blacks and Hispanics, commit a disproportionate amount of crime, pose a tremendous tax burden, and introduce oleaginous amounts of sleaze and corruption in government. Jews pretend not to notice. Meanwhile, non-whites become more brazen in their anti-white rhetoric and begin acting violent, terroristic fashion against white people. Jews pretend not to notice this as well.
Act III: Whites begin to realize that in order to retain their way of life with a positive and healthy sense of racial identity, and to ensure a safe environment for their white descendants, they must separate from non-whites and form a white ethnostate. They must at least temporarily abjure liberal democracy in order to do this. They must draw lines and learn to say no to the non-white. Furthermore, they must be able to recognize who the real villains are: the organized Jewish community. These are the people who wield highly disproportionate control over the American government, news media, and entertainment industries, and who, as a group, promote policies so dysgenic to the white race as to become nearly suicidal.
Of course, Jews don’t like this at all, and use every weapon at their disposal to beat whites into timidly accepting their demise in their own homelands. In his brilliant talk at the recent Erkenbrand Conference in the Netherlands, Millennial Woes actually lists these weapons (and I paraphrase):
From the Left, they have the power-plus-prejudice weapon, the ingrained privilege weapon, the historic injustices weapon, the epistemic privilege weapon, the race as a social construct weapon, and the there’s no such thing as X weapon (that is, there’s no such thing as Dutch or French and so on).
And from the Right, they have the atomized individualism weapon, the collectivism is bad weapon, the only money matters weapon, and the victimhood is for losers weapon.
(Of course, Acts IV and V have not been written yet, but they will concern the fate of whites of the West. Will they rise up and reclaim their homelands? Will they submit to non-whites and miscegenate themselves into extinction? Or will they be killed off once they lack the numbers to resist?)
I have not read Go Back to Where You Came From and do not intend to. However, after viewing its author’s interview with Tucker Carlson, I am convinced that this book is just another weapon that Jews like Polakow-Suransky constantly use against the white race. Tucker, bless his heart, does a good job of raising commonsense objections without explicitly mentioning any of the facts found in Act III. Of course, Polakow-Suransky does not quite share the same inhibitions. In fact, he calls white people out by name.
After insisting that he is against open borders and that he understands why many people are unhappy with non-white immigration, Polakow-Suransky goes on to explain that he’s
. . . more worried about new group of politicians in far right populist parties that are exploiting those fears and those grievances and those resentments to take our societies back a hundred years and in a very dangerous direction. And when I say that white nationalism is a greater threat than jihadists, I’m acknowledging that terrorism is a huge threat to our societies, but great democracies persevere and they manage. Look at the UK. Look at France after the attacks. Look at us after 9-11. But if insiders within our societies, nativist politicians start to stir hatred and resentment towards immigrant groups and refugee groups, we know where that has taken us in the past, Tucker. It’s dangerous and it’s divisive and I think that we need leaders and a news channel that will come out and unequivocally, swiftly, and forcefully, condemn those ideas whenever they emerge.
We all know what’s really going on here. Diaspora Jews are worried about another Holocaust and would rather see whites become completely deracinated, outnumbered, and oppressed in their own countries than abide any political movements that promote a healthy sense of white advocacy, identity, or nationalism. Polakow-Suransky was more discreet about it in the beginning, but at the 4:04 point in the interview, he brings up the specter of another genocide from the Germans as the source of his concern.
And after fretting over the emergence of various Dissident Right figures in public discourse, such as noted anti-Semite David Duke, Polakow-Suransky then disgorges this offensive gem:
We need to have a debate about immigration in this country . . . but David Duke should not have any part in that debate.
So what can be said about this that hasn’t been said before?
Well, for one, we can start with the tit-for-tat. Based on his interview with Tucker Carlson, I can reasonably determine that Sasha Polakow-Suransky is a closed-minded, hateful, anti-white bigot. (I know, I’m being petty. But the Left engages in this sort of thing constantly. So why not engage them back once in a while?) Essentially, Polakow-Suransky ignores the petrifying guilt and self-loathing that many Western Europeans have inflicted upon themselves as a result of World War II and the Holocaust. Remember the comment of Jef Costello’s Jewish acquaintance in his excellent “Our Sheep Are the Best” essay? (It’s one of the best I have read all year, so please make it a priority to read it if you haven’t already.) He was witnessing the listless altruism of modern-day Germans and noted, “They want to die.” Remember, the Germans elected the suicidally pro-immigration Angela Merkel numerous times now. And if you look at the way many Western Europeans in general have been encouraging their own displacement at the hands of invading Muslims, how can this observation not be accurate?
These are the people Polakow-Suransky thinks are going to initiate a second Holocaust. That’s frankly ridiculous and belies a truly ugly racism towards whites. According to Polakow-Suransky, if whites seek quite reasonably to protect and advance their own racial interests then they must all be closet Nazis just waiting for a second chance to stuff Jews into gas chambers. You know how Jews always wonder why anti-Semitism never seems to go away? Well, maybe that’s because the anti-white racism of Jews like Sasha Polakow-Suransky also never seems to go away. It’s funny how these things work.
Saul Alinsky believed that the Left should make the Right live up to its own standards. Well, you know what? This goes both ways. As soon as Polakow-Suransky uttered the word “genocide” Tucker Carlson should have taken a page out of Alinsky’s playbook and called Polakow-Suransky an anti-white racist and accused him of harboring the most malicious prejudice against an entire ethnic group which is wholly innocent of the sins of the past.
The moral high ground feels good, doesn’t it?
Second thing to note: By complaining about how those evil Right-wing politicians will undo freedom and democracy in the West, the proper response from the Right should be a flippant, “Is that so?”
To the Polakow-Suransky’s of the world, democracy in Western societies must be maintained at all costs because only through democracy can they achieve their goal of shoving whites into a hole from which they will never escape. The logic is simple. Non-whites enter white societies, non-whites outbreed the whites, non-white outvote the whites, and then non-whites replace the whites, either through miscegenation or through majority-approved acts of violence. Western democracy, if it is to continue as we know it today, will ultimately result in a pair of black and brown wolves and one white sheep voting on lunch. According to Peter McLoughlin in his enlightening study Easy Meat, the Muslim population in England doubles every ten years. How can the white race survive under these circumstances and remain true to democracy at the same time?
Dissident rightists should then agree with Polakow-Suransky. The Right-wing politicians are indeed a threat to democracy—at least when whites are about to become a minority in a multiracial society. And thank God for that.
Third thing to note: Whenever Jews like Polakow-Suransky try to paint white right-wingers as potential genocidal maniacs, white right-wingers should in return point to the highly disproportionate Jewish complicity in bringing about the Soviet Union, in the atrocities of the Russian Civil War, in the Holodomor, in designing and maintain the Gulag Archipelago, and in the fifty million murdered, and then ask who the real genocidal maniacs are.
I’m always thinking in terms of tactics, and this one, I believe, is underused these days to say the least.
Final note: Jews like Sasha Polakow-Suransky seem to think they have the right to dictate who gets to engage in public debate and who doesn’t. This is how the conqueror speaks to the conquered. To quote the classic Italian-Americanism, “Who died and made him boss?” Hey, I got a great idea! Maybe anti-white racists like Polakow-Suransky should be kept out of public debate. By seeking to strip whites of the only power they have to resist anti-white immigration, people like him seek at the very least the oppression of whites in their own nations. And at worst, they are pushing for white genocide.
How do I know this? Because of the classic Jewish double standard: Ethnonationalism for me and not for thee. Jews approve of pro-Jewish racism in Israel and oppose pro-white racism in white nations. They push for mass non-white immigration into white nations while opposing mass non-Jewish immigration into Israel. When something they care about is on the line, like Israel, they shift Right. But when something they don’t care about is on the line, like white nations, they shift Left. And this is not so much a dig against Israel, but against the true enemies of whites.
They want it both ways, and either don’t realize the damage they’re doing or, sadly enough, they do. In either case, perhaps they’re the ones who should follow Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s unwitting advice and go back to where they came from.
Is Nicki Minaj Super Bass-ed?
David Duke’s Bottle of Red Pills
When Tucker Met Moldbug
Le Nationalisme Blanc est-il haineux ?
Qu’est-ce que le nationalisme américain ?
Le Nationalisme Blanc est-il non-américain ?
Fondations du XXIème siècle: Le Siècle de 1914 de Dominique Venner
Redéfinir le courant majoritaire