Tim Pool
2,680 words
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.
You can buy It’s Okay to Be White: The Best of Greg Johnson here.
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.
30 Comments
Good essay. It’s always struck me that Tim’s appeals to ‘universal human rights’ is just another form of special pleading for his miscegenated condition. The old folks always looked at inter-racial couples with sadness…for the children/i>. I know at least one half-White mixed-race person who is incredibly unhappy because the don’t belong anywhere. The Hapa’s need their own homeland or at least canton. It’s not their fault they’re the way they are.
Let us not be beastly to such people. Who does more damage: a mixed race individual quietly sympathetic to our cause or a leftist professor of European stock who fills her charges’ minds with pernicious rot?
I agree with Dr Johnson’s 90% solution, so eloquently expressed in his recent piece. I’d be perfectly happy to live in a neighbourhood with a certain admixture provided its denizens do not display any anti-white behaviour such a noise or other pollution, criminality or grievance mongering.
Obviously such traits tend to emerge once a certain demographic threshold is crossed. We need to go back to the times when minorities had to behave to get along and white was not a dirty word. That means a demographic, hopefully peaceful, reconquista of some form, but we needn’t be fanatics about each and every individual’s ancestry.
Motor-mouth is an understatement. He makes Ben Shapiro seem laconic. Like Shapiro, he tepidly and with infinity caveats endorsed Trump 2020, then acted like the people owed him cookies or perhaps a Silver Star. When that is your bar for valorous commentary, rest assured he will never be an asset to CC types. He’d sooner lower you into an acid bath than risk youtube demonetization/deplatforming.
This mischaracterizes the major divide. The major divide is not East-West, but North-South: people of the ice versus people of the sun. Huge bodies of people—entire nations, even—are composed of what is between East and West. Peoples such as the Evenks, Sakha, and Sami are part of Western nations, and nations such as Mongolia and Kazakhstan are Western admixture (c.f. Jason Reza Jorjani and Peter Frankopan).
Let’s stop splitting hairs: Tim Pool is White. Face it, the old Aryan myth is now superannuated. That civilization did exist, but they are Indo-Iranians. Yes, there was once a major migration that brought the horse and a language family into Southern Europe, but that isn’t what most people consider the defining characteristic of “white” people. The Third Reich loathed the Celts and the Slavs, but those are the “whitest” people on the planet. Their theories were a mess of contradictions and mythopoesis, and are of limited utility today.
On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that what is most White-incompatible is found in the global South: there are entire continents of full of people that are obviously only remotely related to the peoples of the global North (c.f. Robert Sepehr). They have their own homelands and their own ways of life (and perhaps their own r/K selection strategies). It’s clear that admixture with their atavistic genestock blots out Nordic traits: a phenomenon that they celebrate. Millennia worth of experience shows that this is not a winning combination.
We’re just a tiny slice of people that encircle the top of the world. The true minority, not 1-out-of-7. We’ve got to find some solidarity if we are to remain at all.
Agreed we must open our borders to 4.5 billion Asians only and become a giant southern hemisphere of happas, I’m not genetically 100% European Scots Irish no im a southern hemisphere person and basically the same as a Japanese guy.
Jason Reza Jorjani ? isnt that the mongrelized Iranian who has denounced white nationalism as abhorrent on basically every interview hes done outside of the DR I cant help but suspect he may have an agenda being mixed race himself he has also stated he is pro transgenderism and against traditionalism. https://youtu.be/FrCbDFZTolg
Jorjani is a perfect case in point: he is a proponent of Aryanism, and Aryan isn’t what most people think of as “white”—it is a larger Indo-Iranian group, most of whom have nothing to do with anyone who identifies as “white” in the U.S.
I didn’t say the Celts were Japanese, you straw-manned me. However, I would assert that your genes would have a much higher chance of being expressed with a woman from Hokkaido, than with a woman from the Congo.
Of course, as you say, Northern Eurasia—from Brittany to Chukotka—could not possibly absorb what is south of the Altai mountains without being irrevocably destroyed. (Not to mention what is south of that, or south of the Mediterranean!) This was the point I was trying to get at, if I wasn’t clear.
And who do you think that were indo iranians?
An offspring of corded ware moving east technically andronovo that were genetically identical to north europeans
Yamnaya ( proto indo europeans) only conquered europe and from what is now poland those people( half yamnaya half farmer)they spread to the steppe again killing the original proto indo europeans , moving to western china, india iran , anatolia….
>The Third Reich loathed the Celts and the Slavs …
Sorry, this is not true at all, but a mix of Russian/Polish propaganda and the portrayal of Hollywood Nazis without any basis in reality. Celts and Slavs were considered as White and Aryan back then. Actually it’s a completely ridiculous claim since 2/3 of Germans have themselves celtic and/or slavic roots.
Yes, of course we know that today. However, by Celts I meant those who still spoke Celtic languages–i.e. the Irish and the Bretons. At the time, Mustache Man following Gunther thought them to be inferior to the Anglo-Saxons; said people thought A-S to be Ubermenschen on par with their native Germans.
Again, that’s my whole point! Early 20th-century theories do not help anyone today. “What even is ‘white’?” is a powerful bit of sophistry deployed against us. As this thread shows, there is no definition. What word to even use?
The Third Reich loathed Celtic people? This is literally lol-worthy!
My two thoughts:
1. Tim Pool looks huwhite enough for me.
2. I do not think miscgenation marriage is good, but I find the idea of locking people up for it repulsive.
Is interracial marriage even a significant thing in the US? Aren’t statistics proving that whites are overwhelmingly loyal to their own when it comes to marriage? I think more the more important issue is racial/ethnic composition of society in terms of numbers and locations. Russian Federation comes to mind when thinking about more or less stable multi-ethnic nations.
Autonomous ethnic territories, restricted inter-state movement and residence (internal passports), or simple deportations would solve most perceived problems of mixed ancestry. Problem is, those are not the solutions for liberal republics like the american one.
It used to be almost a nonentity, but rates have increased alarmingly because of decades of cultural Marxist propaganda spread by the usual suspects. With demographic trends the way they are, we certainly don’t need one more problem. I can have compassion toward them individually, as they didn’t choose the circumstances of their birth. Still, one day it’s going to be necessary to draw the lines and sort out who’s who. Perhaps a buffer region or two can be set aside for them.
It doesn’t matter how white he looks to you, this cracker chooses to identify as mixed-race, much like Sargon, and becomes an enemy of white advocacy as a result.
That’s a very good point! I know that I have some amount of Moorish admixture from who know how long ago, but I completely express as my Norman-Celtic side. No BLM thug is going to give me any breaks with my green eyes and auburn hair. Therefore, I must identify as White, as must all of the rest of the family, and the kids. There’s no longer any choice in the matter.
While race is a biological truth, being of varied racial admixture also makes your racial identity a choice. This can become silly, of course: imagine a black man with two negro parents joining the Klan because his great-great-grandpappy was a huwhite Southern slave owner who liked making whoopie with his housekeeper. It’s evident to himself and society at large what category this person really falls into, because at the end of the day he is overwhelmingly black. If you’re of mixed race yet your racial admixture is so overwhelmingly white that you’re considered white by everyone at first glance, it only makes sense to identify as white – the same goes for blacks (just look at Obama, a child of an extremely black father and an extremely white mother, he wouldn’t consider himself white in a million years and neither would the rest of America). Tim Pool might not be comfortable with the epithet, but he is white, and his rejection of his whiteness is a rejection of white advocacy.
>this cracker chooses to identify as mixed-race […] and becomes an enemy of white advocacy as a result
Purity Spiraling here we go!
The best way to have a society where people are treated as individuals, not members of a group, is to have a homogeneous society.
The question of group identity can only come up in diverse societies.
Saying that you want diverse societies where people are treated like individuals is like saying you want to be fit, but you insist on sticking to your bad eating habits and refuse to exercise (that is, you want the result while actively creating conditions that undermine it decisively).
Well said! That’s a very good analogy.
What about hybrid vigor? Don’t hapas have strong genes?
There are some who have said so, but generally not on our side. I tend to disbelieve it, otherwise much of Latin America would be full of supermen. I just don’t see that.
Before Loving, were whites and yellows allowed to marry? I certainly think whites should not marry blacks and browns. Look how the Spanish screwed up all of Latin America. However, I don’t have a problem with whites marrying yellows. I know this is only anecdotal evidence but look at John Derbyshire and his wife and children. It seems to me that when a group with Average IQ of 100 marry into a group with Average IQ 105, the IQs of the offspring will be greater than 100 and this is a good thing. The same is true of crime rates. Yellows have lower crime rates than whites and so the offspring will have lower crime rates than whites. And that is a good thing.
IQ is not the be-all and end-all of what makes a person a person. Blacks, Whites and Asians are not defined by their IQs alone. This is ultimately about having a heritage, a culture, an identity and a place/community to call home in the world. It is the basis of the nation state. Mixed children are robbed of such things – or at the very least, they are forced to choose between them. And in today’s anti-white world, a half-white child is not encouraged to take up the banner of his white ancestry.
Thanks for your response Vauquelin,
You make some good points. But I would respond that while whites should try to marry whites and have white children, being a white/yellow mix is better than being a white/black mix or a white brown mix. Also, many years ago I almost married a Chinese girl. My experience with white American girls was terrible. And I think things are even worse now as feminism has advanced much further. So, it is very hard for intelligent white guys. I didn’t marry the Chinese girl mainly because of money problems. Her money was her money; my money was her money, but her money was not my money. That was not going to work. But she was very ladylike, intelligent, pretty and not a feminist. Fortunately, I am in Eastern Europe now and am married to a wonderful Hungarian woman. There is very little feminism here. Women here are like women used to be in the US before feminism, say in the 1950s.
Racial differences go beyond just IQ. Yellow fever traitors are banned from the ethnostate.
White-Asian marriages were banned in some states. Wah Chang, artist and Hollywood model maker, had to leave his home state to marry a White woman because it was illegal in California.
I believe it depended on the state or territorial laws. Most states at that time had few if any Asian residents, so White-Asian marriage was not an issue in most places. I do know that marriages between Whites and Asians were specifically illegal in California until the late 40s.
Quite a few pioneer types seem to have taken American Indian brides. The miscegnation laws were probably not monolithic or even consistent from area to area.
“[Pool] has no illusions that [Antifa and BLM] are terrorists and the enemy of the American state.”
Perhaps this is a typo? I suggest changing either “the enemy of” to “instruments of” or else change “the American state” to “civilised people in America.”
Tim Pool stole thousands of dollars from his brother out of spite. He is not a good person.
“I’d be perfectly happy to live in a neighborhood with a certain admixture provided its denizens do not display any anti-white behavior such a noise or other pollution, criminality or grievance mongering. ” I agree. And considering the recent election results it is for sure fact that whites are equal to colored peoples in every vice and stupidity.