It’s always interesting when I find someone who shares a clean sweep of my politics but for largely different reasons. Such a person seems completely in line with my outlook, but really isn’t. Although in Tim Pool’s case, I’ll bet that he is and just doesn’t realize it yet.
For the past several months Tim Pool has been banging the Trump drum. The motor-mouthed YouTube pundit has not stopped defying the polls and predicting (albeit cautiously) a Trump victory in the 2020 election. He possesses near-autistic devotion to detail, and, episode after episode throughout the latter half of the year, he has been able to suss out all the reasons why the pro-Biden polling data was flawed. The only thing he didn’t suss out was the widespread fraud that may unseat Trump in 2021. Time will tell on that.
Prognostications aside, Tim Pool is interesting because he’s a self-proclaimed liberal who gravitated to Trump and the Republicans after his candidate of choice, Tulsi Gabbard, had been defeated in the Democratic Primary. Listening to him discuss economics and culture, it seems he’s left-of-center, but not so far left to be incurious about what the Right has to say. He is essentially a first-rate journalist. He’s reasonable, open-minded, and constantly auditing his own thought processes for signs of bias or inconsistency. Sometimes I will disagree with him, but that usually amounts to mere quibbling. Like most of us, he’s horrified at the abuses of Black Lives Matter and Antifa. He has no illusions that these people are terrorists and the enemy of the American state. He may pay lip service denouncing white supremacy, but he knows, like all of us, that the greatest threat to law and order these days comes from the Left.
This is why he now owns guns and is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. He votes Republican not necessarily because he’s excited about the GOP but because he sees Republicans as less corrupt than Democrats. He’d rather deal with honest people he disagrees with than with dishonest people he does agree with. He also opposes the Totalitarian Left.
What regular Counter-Currents reader would object to any of this?
On October 27, Pool posted a video on YouTube entitled “BLM Riots ERUPT in Philly, BLM RAMS Row of Cops With Truck Running Over Cop, Mass Looting All Over.” Like most of his stuff, it’s informative and gripping. But this is a unique piece for Pool because in it, for a moment, he stops being a journalist. He becomes a partisan actor. In fact, he uncharacteristically shuts down debate. He lays his personal cards on the table and expresses an opinion, which, as we shall see, is really an axiom for his political outlook. And this axiom may or may not be falsified.
I don’t blame Pool for this — we’re all human, and we all do it. However, in an effort to further our cultural debate and come to some kind of agreement among reasonable people, I feel I need to respond.
One of the axioms upon which Tim Pool bases his politics is wrong, and it involves Loving v. Virginia.
According to Infogalactic, Loving v. Virginia (1967):
is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white” and people classified as “colored”. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the US, and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.
So you see why this is interesting. A regular Counter-Currents reader might be in general agreement with Tim Pool regarding current politics, but will at the very least express skepticism regarding the wisdom behind the very bedrock of Pool’s belief system: Loving v. Virginia.
Pool offers his comments at the 17:30 mark of his video. Here it is transcribed. It’s long but good:
I think there’s gonna be mass violence. I don’t know who’s gonna win because both sides. . . refuse. . . there is no compromise. I had a friend say to me recently, “Tim, we can fix all of this. We just need to get people to listen and to understand.” And I’m like, I’m sorry, that’s very naïve. I don’t believe there is going to be a compromise. You know Antifa. . . they’re neo-segregationist. When we see in Seattle, the library segregated, they’re doing the segregated workforce trainings. I’m sorry, I’m not going to compromise with that. There’s no circumstance where I’m willing to accept any amount of neo-segregation. I’m not. It’s not gonna happen. So what do we do? How many of you, liberal, conservative, moderate, or otherwise, refuse to allow these people to instill their racist policies, their segregation policies? Probably very few. I don’t think there can be a compromise in certain capacities. There’s not gonna be a time where we are happy allowing them to segregate based on race. And they’re doing it in California. The Democrats voted to repeal their civil rights legislation to allow them to discriminate based on race.
Fast forward to 20:12:
The problem I see is Leftist identitarianism, intersectionality, neo-segregation, et cetera. They are trying to create a world in which people are being segregated based on race. Some groups are demonized over others. Some are told that they have inherent privileges. And it is extremely racist and it is not what we have fought so hard for. The Civil Rights Movement, the protests from decades ago. It’s remarkable to me that people don’t realize this. My family, my parents, were born before civil rights, and before Loving v. Virginia. People don’t understand that, that we are one. . . like this is not some. . . we’ve not had this victory for a very long time. Our parents, all of our parents, many of them were born before civil rights, or for millennials, if you’re Gen Z, then maybe not, depending on how old your parents were. Before the civil rights were signed, the Civil Rights Act, before Loving v. Virginia made it legal to cohabitate with people who are not the same race as you. It’s not even been a generation, and they’re already trying to remove this stuff in California when they repealed these laws. I’m sorry, man. I will not negotiate with that.
Before we continue, we should point out that Tim Pool is on the record stating that he is biracial (part white and part Asian, I believe). So his opposition to repealing Loving now makes sense since he has a personal stake in the matter. He made this explicit the moment he mentioned his family. It’s not necessarily that without Loving he would never have been born. It’s more that without Loving, people like him, i.e., miscegenationists and their mixed-race offspring, would have fewer rights than otherwise.
Politics is essentially efforts by individuals to make circumstances more comfortable and advantageous for themselves and their tribes — and often this translates to control over territory, almost in an ecological sense. For example, when inner-city blacks vote for other blacks in local elections, it doesn’t really matter if these officials are corrupt, inept, and make things worse for the people who elected them. What matters is that these officials are ethnocentrically black. This will guarantee that blacks as a group will have a place of their own with some prestige and influence to go with it. Look to how white Democrat politicians used to kiss Al Sharpton’s ring in Harlem during their campaigns for an example of this prestige.
If some clever white Republican, on the other hand, were to become mayor of Detroit, what would he do? He’d lower taxes, root out corruption, get tough on crime, et cetera, until Detroit actually becomes a nice place again. And then what would happen? Non-blacks would return to Detroit and crowd the blacks out of all chambers of power. Such a turn of events may improve the lives of blacks as individuals (with lower crime and unemployment, and more efficient public works, for example), but their control over territory as a group would be drastically reduced. This can only lead to extinction, which is far more frightening than crime, poverty, and inefficient public bussing.
So what does this have to do with Tim Pool? It’s simple. Pool identifies as biracial and in an ethnocentric nation, biracial people would be crowded out of chambers of power and influence. If the United States were to split into white, black, Asian, and Hispanic enclaves, Pool would have no obvious home, and whatever home he does find would presumably be less secure than those of single-race people. Therefore he cannot countenance ethnocentrism of any kind, and looks to Loving v. Virginia as the wellspring of his outlook. He’s part of a very small tribe, living among bigger tribes. He therefore wishes to abolish all forms of tribalism (except for maybe his own). In this sense, he has more in common with racial identitarians than he realizes.
Pool should ask himself if he would have the same absolutist attitude about racial segregation if there were twenty million white-Asian biracial people living in the United States. At that point, he’d have a place to go to and people to protect him if things ever got hot. I suspect this would change his attitude quite a bit, since, as John Donne tells us, no man is an island.
I’m sure Pool would abjure any selfish motives by claiming that he is a man of principle. He supports what is true and just. After all, what kind of tyrant would forbid a person from marrying as they choose? Pool would probably also disavow all identity politics (again, except perhaps his own). He’s an American, and thus believes in personal liberty, equal protection under the law, separation of powers, representational government, and all the other great things Americans are supposed to believe in. And that’s awfully Enlightened of him. What I presume he doesn’t understand is that these ideals are, in essence, white ideals. Only white people were smart enough to come up with them, and only white people are dumb enough to adhere to them in the multiracial mess America has become. They work well in a mostly white nation. And as we slouch towards Bethlehem in the twenty-first century, we’re learning the hard way that they don’t work so well in a multi-racial nation.
I say this because non-whites, by and large, don’t give a fig about liberty, equal protection, and all that. They come and stay in the United States and Europe largely to make money or enjoy public welfare. That’s it. And their politics are almost uniformly tribalist and anti-white. If they were as passionate about Enlightenment ideals as the Founding Fathers were, they would have established free and open civilizations on their own, but few ever did. Since throughout history different races have consistently made different kinds of civilizations (at least according to Samuel Huntington), then the onus falls on people like Tim Pool to show how race and genetics do not play a deciding role in determining these differences. I don’t think he or anyone else can.
This is why I think Loving v. Virginia was bad jurisprudence and Tim Pool’s support for it slightly self-serving. (Remember, he brought up his family and his mixed-race identity, not me.) Loving is bad because it pretends that the races are equal in intellect and temperament — a demonstrable lie — and it also pretends that the gain in conjugal freedom outweighs the dysgenic effects on whites of interbreeding with blacks, a race that is prone to crime and burdened with an average IQ a standard deviation below the white norm.
Remember how I stated that politics is about making circumstances more comfortable and advantageous for oneself and one’s tribe? How on Earth does Loving v. Virginia accomplish this for whites? It certainly benefits blacks by improving their gene pool, and better enabling them to pursue black supremacist goals in government and in culture. But, given all the crime and poverty blacks bring with them, can anyone say that this is a good thing? Can Tim Pool say this is a good thing, given how blacks and other non-whites in power are now forcing a return to the very segregation he hates?
Essentially, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, the act which Loving overturned, was a good act. Sure, there may have been abuses resulting from it (I’m sure one could make a spirited argument against forced sterilizations) and it did limit personal freedoms and make life harder on miscegenators and their children (the late guitarist Eddie Van Halen, who had an Indonesian mother, had a thing or two to say about it here). On the other hand, the Act did help keep a strong positive identity among whites. And it was eugenic. Resulting from this, white America was the envy of the world for nearly a century and was far more stable, cohesive, and secure than it is today. These benefits outweigh the costs. The signers of the Racial Integrity Act knew this. The Supreme Court in 1967 did not.
Lacking the institutionalized protection of a Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and similar legislation, whites have now gone on the decline. White identity is roundly condemned while non-white identity (including Pool’s) is celebrated. Whites have abandoned swaths of territory in cities across the world to non-whites. Whites have no profound argument against maintaining their borders or resisting mass non-white immigration. When non-whites commit crimes against whites, there is no organization specifically protecting white interests to resist in any meaningful way. The fact that Cannon Hinnant’s grieving mother claimed her five-year-old son was not a racist after their black neighbor executed him in broad daylight should demonstrate just how demoralized and frightened whites have become in face of increasingly assertive non-whites in America.
Eventually, non-whites will gain enough demographic and political power in traditional white homelands to oppress and enslave whites, and whites will not have the numbers to resist. This is how things are trending right now, and this can only lead to white extinction. Because Loving v. Virginia stripped away what was strong and healthy among whites as a group, it must be viewed in hindsight as a crack in the dam that helped start the flood in which we’re all drowning today.
I’m sure Tim Pool means none of this. On top of the valuable journalism work he does, he strikes me as an honest, well-meaning guy. He’s also consistently anti-anti-white, which I appreciate. If a white ethnostate were to ever be formed, we’d be lucky to have him, regardless of his pedigree (see more about my ‘One-Half-Not-Black’ rule here and here).
I just hope this essay will prompt Pool to revisit an aspect of his worldview which I see as incomplete. If he has the integrity to move from Tulsi Gabbard to Donald Trump, then I think he has the integrity for that as well.
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 458 Gregory Hood & Greg Johnson on Burnham & Machiavellianism
Deconstructing Dugin: An Interview with Charles Upton, Part 1
Our Prophet: Christopher Lasch’s The Revolt of the Elites, Part 2
Our Prophet: Christopher Lasch’s The Revolt of the Elites, Part 1
My Response to Right Wing Watch
Céline vs. Houellebecq
White Identity Nationalism, Part 2