Photo: Wikimedia Commons
1,643 words
Tucker Carlson deserves a lot of thanks for being the most outspoken critic of the insanity of America’s ruling family: the demented and abusive husband (the Democrats), the abused and clinging wife who enables him (the Republicans), their spoiled and insane daughter (the Left), and their increasingly aggressive Pitbull that they allow to bite people and befoul their neighborhood. Tucker speaks primarily for their abused and neglected son, the American people, who is now at risk from a whole range of self-destructive behaviors. I hope the kid makes it. He’s lucky to have Uncle Tucker in his life.
I am particularly grateful that Mr. Carlson has spoken openly about the Great Replacement: the ongoing demographic decline of white nations due to Third World immigration and low white birthrates. The Great Replacement is a truly magical concept. If you object to the Great Replacement, it is an evil Right-wing conspiracy theory that merits censorship and imprisonment. If you celebrate it, however, you can be published by the New York Times.
But as useful as Mr. Carlson has been to advocates of white identity politics like me, he is not one of us, as he made clear in a recent interview with Adam Carolla (I want to thank Jim Goad for transcribing this):
I will say this, if I could just make one prediction. So the United States is becoming nonwhite. Everyone’s excited about it. Or if you’re not excited about it, it doesn’t matter. Whites are going to be in the minority. So what that means — soon — so what that means is, you’re gonna get, at some point probably in my lifetime, people standing up and saying, “I represent white people! I’m the candidate of the white voter!”
This is how I read Mr. Carlson’s remarks so far: The Great Replacement is happening. All the dominant voices are celebrating it. If you don’t celebrate it, that doesn’t matter. They are not giving us any choice in the matter. Whites are going to be a minority. But if you attack people as white, eventually they are going to defend themselves as white. Thus, white identity politics is inevitable.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
This is entirely correct.
In a democracy, becoming a minority means that we will lose even the chance of asserting political control over our own destiny. Of course, our current democracy is a sham, because we were never allowed to vote on the Great Replacement to begin with. It was imposed upon us by hostile elites.
How do we stop the Great Replacement? It is happening due to a whole array of anti-white policies. Obviously, we need to oppose them with pro-white policies. We need to craft policies that will reverse white demographic decline and promote white interests. We need politicians and pundits who will champion such ideas. And we need to rally voters to support pro-white policies. Of course, this primarily means white voters, although I am sure some non-whites also oppose the Great Replacement, since it erodes their political power, culture, and living standards as well. In sum, we need white identity politics.
Mr. Carlson may think white identity politics is inevitable, but he wants none of it:
And I just wanna say, on the record, that I’m gonna tell that person to fuck off. Because nobody speaks — I’m a, I’m an adult man, and nobody speaks for me ’cause he shares the same skin color as me. I just reject that entire idea. If I agree with you, I’ll let you speak for me, and if I don’t, I won’t. But this idea that someone of a certain skin color, any skin color, or any ethnic background speaks automatically on behalf of all people who share that skin color or ethnic background is a Nazi idea, and I’m totally opposed to it. And I will be opposed to it when it happens to me. When some — this will happen — someone’s gonna, “Oh, white people!” And I’ll be like, “I don’t even know you, dude. I don’t even know you. I refuse to allow you to purport to speak for me ’cause we look the same, period.”
Mr. Carlson is objecting to two issues here. He objects to the idea of someone who represents white ethnic interests, and he rejects the idea of white ethnic interests themselves. Mr. Carlson’s objection to both ideas hinges on the concept of choice.
Mr. Carlson does not like the idea that people will emerge someday soon claiming to represent his interests as a white person. He’s an adult, and he says he will choose who represents him based on whether he agrees with him or not.
I think that Mr. Carlson, like many conservatives, would like to go back to an era before identity politics, when voters chose who represented them based on ideology, not identity.
A lot of conservatives don’t like identity politics because it bases political representation on something that we don’t choose: our identities. This, of course, is a deeply liberal assumption, namely that anything unchosen is illegitimate.
But there are many things we don’t choose. We don’t choose to be born. We don’t choose where we are born. We don’t choose our parents. We don’t choose our sex. We don’t choose our mother tongue. And of course we don’t choose our race.
We might prefer not to have any enemies. But sometimes, we are given no choice, because our enemies also have the power to choose us.
We would also prefer that our enemies do not attack us, but they might have their own plans.
Finally, we would prefer that our enemies not attack us where we are weak, but that’s precisely where they will aim.
Right now, the Left attacks whites as whites, and they will continue to do so as long as white people refuse to fight back as whites. That flank is left undefended because of an absurd taboo against white identity politics (and only white identity politics).
Because whiteness is undefended, loonies are now attacking everything they score badly on — beauty, cleanliness, punctuality, literacy, numeracy, rationality, Body Mass Indexes, really any standards whatsoever — as white things.
The stakes, then, are extremely high. Civilization itself is in the balance. Moreover, Mr. Carlson recognizes that white people are being attacked as white people. But because he has internalized the silly taboo against defending white interests, he’s not yet comfortable fighting back as a white person, which he makes clear elsewhere in the same interview:
Well, I mean, the whole thing, everything about it is shocking to me, including the fact that people put up with it. The endless attacks on the whites, and I’m not defending whites — plenty of them, in fact, most of the people who annoy me are white, okay — but to attack any group as a group is by definition, like, a Nazi move.
But the old paradigm Mr. Carlson prefers is not coming back. Why? Because there are only two ways to defeat anti-white identity politics. One way is to beat them with white identity politics, which means embracing identity politics. The other way is to persuade the anti-whites to give up identity politics altogether and go back to the old model, which they will never do.
Imagine American politics as a poker game. In this game, every racial, ethnic, and other identity group has a seat at the table and a stack of chips. Whites are the largest group, so we’ve got the biggest stack of chips. But the way the game is played is that every other group has a wild card, namely the “race card” or the “identity card,” but white people don’t.
You would never consent to playing poker by those rules, because no matter how many advantages you had at the start of the game, every hand you play is going to bring you closer and closer to losing it all. The only way not to lose that game is not to play it.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
The way to stop playing that game is to give up the ridiculous taboo against white identity politics. White people simply need to say, “We’re in an ethnic battle, and we’re taking our own side. Not taking your own side in a fight is the mark of a liberal. We’re not going to be swindled out of our birthright by playing by these rigged rules.”
Republicans, however, believe that white identity politics is evil per se. Only white identity politics is evil, however, since Republicans are eager to pander to blacks, Hispanics, Asians — really, anybody but whites. At this point, the only thing conservatives have left is the idea that white identity politics is a “Nazi” thing — as if they would judge any other group’s identity politics by the worst-case scenario. Interestingly enough, that’s the same thing that anti-whites say to keep us from fighting back.
Since Republicans will not embrace white identity politics, they can only try to persuade other groups to abandon their own identity politics. But why would any sane group voluntarily drop a winning strategy? Why would they exchange a winning strategy for a losing one? Why would they follow the example of losers instead of holding them in contempt?
Beyond that, even if we could go back to the old paradigm of ideological rather than identity politics, it was hardly a winning strategy for the Right. Since the end of the Cold War, Republicans have done little more than weakly protest and then gracefully capitulate to every one of the Left’s destructive demands.
Mr. Carlson’s comments are a wonderful illustration of the power of moral ideas to shape politics. He represents the best of the conservative movement. He sees the Great Replacement. He understands that anti-white identity politics will make white identity politics inevitable. He might even see that mobilizing around whiteness is necessary to defeat the anti-white Left. Yet, he is held back by a classical liberal discomfort with unchosen political loyalties, which leads him to reject identity politics. (At least he is consistent in rejecting identity politics for everyone.) This is why philosophy is so important to our cause. Once these sorts of dogmas are destroyed, white identity politics will be unstoppable.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
84 comments
Another excellent and illuminating article! Thank you Greg for breaking this down for me.
“Mr. Carlson’s comments are a wonderful illustration of the power of moral ideas to shape politics. (…) This is why philosophy is so important to our cause. Once these false dogmas are destroyed, white identity politics will be unstoppable.”
I agree with your assertion and your demonstration is irrefutable. But is it not also a generational problem? For even if the morality of white identity politics is proven, our Marxist enemies will pull out their “Hitler” joker. I think the difficulty Mr. Carlson and other Republicans have in accepting the inevitability of white identity politics is that he must infer, “But then, that means Hitler was (partly) right!” This heretical thought would cause an intellectual deflagration, and I don’t think Mr. Carlson’s generation is capable of taking on such mental overload. On the other hand, I do think the “Hitler argument” will have much less impact on generations born in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But it is also true that intellectual courage is not a matter of age but disposition too!
Just last night I was re-reading Chinua Achebe’s book of essays, The Education of a British Protected Child. I decided to count how many times he matter-of-factly referred to African Nationalism, but I stopped counting after a while because it became so repetitive. African Nationalism was only briefly controversial in Nigeria. After a while, even before the British left, it became the logical, default position.
What kind of brink are we going to have to face before White Nationalism becomes our default position?
To Tucker Carlson,
Taking one’s own side is NOT a Nazi idea, Tucker, taking your own side is how Nature works, & has been this way ever sense life began. Taking our own side is natural & normal & how we protect our children. Tucker, you are intentionally attempting to discourage us Europeans from coming together, from collectivizing. You, Tucker, are a traitor.
——————————————————-
Suggest all of us to collectivize. It won’t hurt to let Tucker know that we are onto him, that we know what he is doing, which of course, means additionally that he is throwing his children under the bus, fore, it does not matter how rich he is – his minority children will not escape reality.
At the 3:25 mark, you will hear Tucker say how Carolla’s cars are worth more than the town Tucker grew up in. That’s odd given he was born in San Francisco and raised in Sherman Oaks. He went to private school at $50k a year tuition. His mother is the Swanson Food heir and his father worked for the CIA.
He does this in every interview, the “oh gosh, I’m a simple man like most of my followers”. I find his rhetoric very dangerous. He’s a pressure valve and many conservative White boomers sit back and think, “Tucker thinks it’s Nazi to be proud of being White”.
All the money in the world will not protect his attractive wealthy White children from the world of hurt they will endure. What does he care, he’ll be gone by then?
I just figured Tucker was avoiding the third rail of full-on racial discourse. He has to balance his offerings with a lot of low-calorie social-conservative crap, about sexual weirdoes and global warming fanatics, and of course always bring on the Nightly Negro so we can bow to the Diversity god. If he banged away on race every night I’m sure his minders would tell him to cool it.
There’s a difference between not saying “White Power” on national tv and saying “don’t group me with Whites”, “Nazi, Nazi, Nazi”. He should have kept his mouth shut, but he rather get the dopamine hits from virtue signaling. What does he care, he has more money than God? So much for his “I’m one of you guys” kabuki theater.
I appreciate Tucker Carlson, too.
A lot of conservatives don’t like identity politics because it bases political representation on something that we don’t choose: our identities. This, of course, is a deeply liberal assumption, namely that anything unchosen is illegitimate.
And yet, like the true civic nationalists that Carlson and other genuine conservatives are, he and the others never object to birthright citizenship, nor to the metaphysical Lincolnian claim that a state has an absolute and perpetual claim to the territory over which it claims sovereignty, the lack of volitional choice amongst the current and successive generations of the population on the matter notwithstanding.
Good comment, but wrong wrt genuine conservatives. Plenty of us have been objecting to “birthright citizenship” (a very rare immigration policy when considered globally) possibly longer than you have been alive. Indeed, I argue that opposition to Replacement is the foundation-stone of conservatism. What else is supposed to be conserved if not the people and the nation? Conservatism begins with DNA.
I was not referring to immigration, or birthright citizenship from the mere locus of the birth, in my comment. Rather, I was referring to the universal practice of granting citizenship of a nation-state to the offspring of native born parents who are themselves citizens of that nation-state. Tucker Carlson did not choose his citizenship; it was granted to him at birth without his parents or the government authorities consulting him. It was non-volitional. Genuine conservatives rightly do not object to this practice, but then object to other non-volitional aspects like blood, ethnicity, and gender – organic non-volitional aspects.
And I fully agree with you that the most important object of conservatism is the conservation of the people and the nation. Conservatism does indeed begin with conserving DNA. Well stated.
In no way, shape or form does your view represent mainline ‘conservatism’. Mainline ‘conservatism’ is just liberalism repackaged for rural Christians businessmen.
Good observation about conservative aversion to things we don’t chose. One exception seems to be gender. We don’t chose that, at least not naturally.
“Once these false dogmas are destroyed, white identity politics will be unstoppable.”
I thoroughly enjoyed that line. Philosophy must play a central role in our movement precisely because Jewish religious movements have force-fed our people with dogma that is as poisonous as it is disprovable.
Jewish religious movements include Christianity, psychoanalysis, and critical theory. Carlson subscribes to Christian dogma clearly. He views moral universalism as an unparalleled good, and he constantly regurgitates the skin color line: people should never be treated differently on the basis of the color of their skin. Carlson unlike the Left does not dehumanize white people and exclude them from the equality principle. Nevertheless, he delegitimizes our greatest weapon: white identity.
It should also be noted that Carlson does not wish to be lumped in with many whites that he certainly believes are beneath him in terms of socio-economic status or class. He is content to lead them while not sharing an ethnic identity with them. Wealthy whites in The Hamptons do not like to picture themselves as members of the same extended family as poor whites in Appalachia. Wealthy whites largely do not have to face the consequences of anti-white U.S. governmental policies. Wealthy whites buy themselves out of diversity, affirmative action, and non-white crime. They inhabit white utopias whereas most whites inhabit anti-white dystopias.
For this reason, white identity politics has been and will continue to be the province of working and middle-class whites. These whites pay the social costs and do not enjoy the benefits of non-white immigration whereas wealthy whites do not pay the costs but enjoy the benefits of non-white immigration.
National populism represents whites who have been harmed by diversity not those who have reaped the benefits of low-wage immigrant labor. White identity politics is joined at the hip with middle class identity. Carlson may be weary of this implicit focus on class identity given his conservative priors.
One can be prowhite and conservative (indeed, I hold this conjunction is necessary); one can be prowhite and Christian (one cannot be antiwhite and Christian, though it is true one could be racially indifferent and Christian). YOU are buying into the dogmas of the Left as well Tucker.
So, you argue that it’s Leftist to feel, as a white, that you’ve been completely shafted by multiracialism? I was stridently conservative from the time I was able to comprehend politics, but when I was in my early 20s the well-to-do area in which I grew up was subjected to an organized effort to settle blacks. This campaign, organized by a certain wealthy group in Chicago whose head covering attire shall remain nameless, resulted, within the period of five years (!), in a demographic shift in that county from 90% white to 90+% black. All of my friends, having decamped for a less dusky existence, promptly abandoned me, as I could not afford to join them. That was their measure of me as a friend — my financial situation. In any case, I regarded all of them as gutless cowards. Also, coming from a broken home, I saw that my mother was likewise unable to afford to move as most of the other whites did, so I stayed to protect her. In so doing, I experienced more than anyone’s rightful share of dealing with social decay, including having to make use of firearms, which I did not possess until I found myself in the middle of the Rodney King riots, to deal with black criminal activity. I’m sure you will be very happy when I tell you that in all of that, I was a model civic nationalist and never allowed my thoughts to stray into “Nazi” thought territory. Nah, I would be absolutely BSing you if I did that. Instead, I heartily invite every white who has been able, so far anyway, to buy his way out of the country’s racial future to stop running away and let all that vibrant diversity to wash over him, to embrace the crime, to endure a black riot, to reflect on the reasons he is subjected to the reproachful greetings of his neighbors — “Go f—k yourself, whitey!” — and after five years provide a report on how he never had a single moment of wrongthink.
The fact that – semantically – one could be ‘pro-white and conservative’ is irrelevant. What matters is whether that combination of positions actually exists and, so far as I can tell, you are the only exponent of that position. As for ‘prowhite and Christian’, show me one openly pro-White Christian denomination in the US. You can’t. As for ‘antiwhite and Christian’, this is the open position of 99% of all ‘Christians’ at this point. This has nothing to do with the Left and everything to do with the fact that Christianity is a jew-worshiping religion whose chickens have come home to roost.
Ordinary people accept the framing of the judeo-left on issues because the judeo-left has won the culture war. The so-called ‘White Right’ – including ‘conservatism’ – failed at every turn because of the disabling hell-broth of elitism, anti-democracy and ‘lick’em next time’ boosterism that gradually turned into Eeyore levels of pessimism.
Is there a single aspect of conservative or right-wing discourse that is the least bit appealing to a White working class person? I don’t see it. And a big part of the problem is that the (mostly WASP) White ruling class systematically betrayed the White working class at every opportunity. While that class still clings to their very White traditions and cultural institutions in a 100% Lifeboat Mentality, and let the jews and non-Whites have their way with the White working class. That White ruling class has never admitted error or apologized for failing to stand with the White working class.
“Moral universalism” is not Christian dogma. (There is very little Christian dogma, as a matter of fact the Holy See took 1800 years just to promulgate the Immaculate Conception.) What you mean really is what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin dismissed as a “declaration of pastors,” goody-goody talk about equality, as noted in my recent Teilhard article. But that’s not dogma, and I know of no mainstream Christian denomination that literally preaches race suicide. The unfortunate fact that Christian discourse has become so polluted with this foul nonsense, is just part and parcel of the degeneracy affecting every other Western institution, from fine art to academia.
Of course someone will now chime in and point out that churchy-sounding groups, under the banner of one sect or another, are encouraging the invasion of our country (countries) by vicious aliens, mainly brown pagans. How clever of them to hide under some sort of Christian banner like that. Akin to the Gay Libbers who hang rainbow flags, and worse, from the front of churches, imagining that proximity to a religious edifice somehow sanitizes their criminal agenda. These outrages need to be called out loudly and often, preferably by active members of those congregations.
This is a great essay. I like how you show what everyone with a cursory knowledge of game theory knows to be true. Atomized, unorganized individuals confronting highly organized and coordinated groups will be annihilated. As for annihilation, that is not hyperbole. That is what the anti-white advocates advocate for and they are behaving that way too.
That is how we ended up here. The highest moral duty one has is to one’s own survival and well being and to the survival and well being of one’s posterity. That includes the preservation and veneration of the sacrifices our ancestors made for us to survive and the gift of culture they left us as our inheritance. We have a duty to them, to ourselves and to our children.
I sometimes think that people like Tucker fear not the millions of voices of disapproval that come with taking your own side and fighting for your cause, but unapologetically taking it up and hearing the roar of hundreds of millions of lions waking to reconstitute The Pride.
If Tucker fears being the one to hold the mantle, then it will be someone else who has the courage to lift it high. Tucker, our roar will drown out your, “fuck you.” It will be lost in obscurity and insignificance lest we be drown out and lost for eternity.
Do you expect a trust fund baby and the son of a CIA agent to hold the mantle? Not a chance. Tucker doesn’t have enough self control to not shove Fig Newtons down his gullet, much less be a savior. He is flabby and weak, both physically, mentally and spiritually. We are running out of time and have very few options.
I did not say I expect him too. That wasn’t the point of my post. I understand the frustration and urgency. It is great that you have that as it is a necessary state. We all feel it. What is more necessary is to move beyond it by conquering the internal chaos it creates. Assume and hold a strong posture. If you feel that we are running out of time and options, then be someone who is moving on a faster timeline and become one of the options. But, whatever you do , don’t do it if it isn’t a net positive for Our Cause. Take some deep breaths, gather yourself, clear your head, don’t lash out at those on your side, embrace someone on our side, and fill a constructive role. Panic and hysterics won’t do us any good.
When Tucker first replaced Bill O’Reilly, I didn’t ultimately know what to think.
There’s no question that O’Reilly is one of the worst journalists of all time, and he’s always had VERY liberal views on race, and negative opinions and coverage about white nationalists. Tucker seemingly took a different approach to this, so I was cautiously excited, but careful because it’s “still Fox News.”
Tucker has done a great job with pushing the Overton window form where O’Reilly was — talking extensively about mass immigration, white population decline, etc. However, in the last 9 months or so, he’s been scaling back immensely at the idea of talking about white people, immigration, repatriation, and so forth. It’s quite disappointing to say the least, especially what you pointed out with his interview on Adam Corolla (another absolutely useless clown).
The unanswered question I have about Tucker, however, is what’s behind this sudden pullback from openness towards white nationalism. Was Tucker never truly on our side to begin with and simply gave lip service to Conservatives, or did he have a recent meeting with Fox News executives who warned him to “knock it off with the white supremacy” or risk losing his job?
He was talking in clear detail about the Hart-Celler Act last summer, and is now suddenly calling white nationalists Nazis. The timing is suspicious.
It’s easy, he was never our guy. He’s worth over half a billion dollars, why does he care about his job at Fox News? He’s an egomaniac that plays off as “shucks, I’m just like you”. Every notice in all his interviews and speeches he acts like he was born in middle class, even though nothing could be further from the truth? He knows people would follow him on alternative media and Fox News would be totally screwed. But he also knows that he would have less viewers on alternative and he can’t have that.
It’s so low brow to keep throwing out the Nazi comparisons and he went full tilt. Perhaps a trip to Israel is next for him. Time to kiss a wall.
Like most conservatives, Tucker is a complete weasel who would (and will) throw any of us under the bus when the time comes. And I disagree with Mr. Johnson’s analogy that Republicans are like an abused spouse. Rather, I look at ‘Pubs (and conservatives) like a collection of bank security guards, leisurely enjoying their lunches while advising the guys robbing the bank to maybe “slow it down a little before someone gets hurt, okay?” I can only hope there is a hell that William F. Buckley is roasting in.
I have to wonder if he’s being sincere and really thinks he’s above it all, or if he’s giving the expected answer.
I tend to think he’s on autopilot. But either way, he’s got a huge audience that hears, and is influenced by, his musings.
When I read it, my first thought is that he’s being a weasel. Then I considered that he’s as edgy as anyone can get at a controlled opposition media channel. Even then, whatever their faults, they’ve been dogwhistling nonstop. Obviously it would be better if they’d grow a pair, of course.
Same here. He’s like an otherwise good car with a bad oil leak. 😎
(BTW, I have not forgotten that I owe you a book review at Amazon. It will happen, one day.)
Cool deal. IIRC, I handed out seventeen copies, and your review could be the first! I hope it didn’t start out too slowly? There’s a lot of exposition in the first chapter, though this relates to several plot points later.
I hope this finds its way to Mr. Carlson. A great response to his misguided comments.
Tucker will be called a nazi regardless by his enemies and a coward by his descendants.
I have never been called a “sycophant” or “suckup”. But I’ll risk it now. I’ve come to the conclusion that virtually whatever Greg Johnson writes, on race especially, instantly becomes “the last word” on the subject. I don’t know how this takedown of Tucker (and civic nationalism) could be improved. Well done. I suggest readers send this link as widely and far as possible. I further suggest that you do so in every rightist (ie, normiecon and libertarian) place still open-minded enough to allow uncensored commenting, as well as any online places normal whites are known to frequent. We can’t just talk among ourselves. We must bring articles like this to the wider attention of our people (at least to those not committed to the Left, which is the product of an evolutionary aberration and overwhelmingly hopeless).
Thanks. Folks, if you are reading this article, send a link to it to ten of your friends. Let’s see if we can make it viral. Who knows, maybe even Tucker will read it.
Done.
Also, anyone so inclined can copy and send a link to Tucker’s show here. I did it and did not get an error message of any kind. It may be a longshot, but worth a try.
We’re in an ethnic battle, and we’re taking our own side.
But isn’t White a racial term? Why not say we’re in a racial battle? And if you do believe it’s actually an ethnic battle, why not refuse to use the word White and instead refer only to the American ethnicity (comprised of former European ethnic stock) that you believe has come into existence?
Do you literally not understand? Or is this mere quibbling?
There’s no lack of comprehension in my opinion, just a call for precision, given the on-going debate differentiating between ethno- and white nationalism.
“Ethnic” is often simply a “softer” term for “racial”, just like I guess “erotic” was a “softer” term for “sexual” in pruder Victorian times. We must work with the verbal tools of our time. Kevin MacDonald too speaks about “ethno-nationalism”, “ethno-masochism” etc. while in reality it is about race. If it works better for us we should use it.
Potentially both, depending on what you view to be trivial. I suppose one could argue that whenever someone from America refers to Whites, they are actually talking about White Americans rather than the European race itself. White American or European-American would be the ethnicity or pan-ethnicity. The same would apply to Black Americans or African-Americans. So is race ever really relevant if all we’re ever doing is talking about different ethnic groups? Does a white nationalist support ethnonationalism only for White (European) ethnic groups? Or does white nationalism actually just mean White American Nationalism? If not, what exactly separates a white nationalist from just a regular ethnonationalist or universal nationalist?
I deal with these issues in my writings here, so I suggest you read around.
As with Europeans hardly any non-Europeans consciously appreciate what’s happening.
Mr Carlson’s conflation of ultimate political evil with commonplace ethnocentric behaviour may be ignorant, but at least he broaches the matter with his public. You would be hard-pressed to find any influential British pundit prepared to do so. Even to allude to the (supposedly ‘discredited’) notion that white people might be indigenous to the British Isles would be to invite crucifixion by our media, and quite possibly a raid from PC Plod and his mates. We seem to have arrived at an entire state-sponsored pseudo-history of multi-ethnic multiculturalism projected all the way into our nation’s remote past (except, that is, for an inexplicable outbreak of slave-mongering and empire-building, commencing in the early modern period, that was thankfully terminated by a fresh infusion from the sub-saharan diaspora in the 1950s and 60s). Just how this counterfactual narrative, which is expounded to the young in our schools, took root and fungated, is a matter that deserves investigation and exposure. But without our own mainstream commentators of the type represented by Mr Carlson, flawed though his analysis may sometimes be, the truth of the matter has no prospect of entering mainstream discourse.
Here is a question for Tucker Carlson:
“Would you support the Free Speech rights of a group of White students who wanted to set up a White Student Union on campus?”
(Bear in mind that Tucker would not have to support the goals of such a hypothetical organization, just the students’ right to organize.)
After all, there is the First Amendment and every other identity openly organizes for their own interests, fully supported by university establishments, corporate grants and government blessings. But when White people try to organize they are met with media smears, IT deplatformings, mob violence, malicious prosecutions and the usual hysterics.
Now, one can understand why the anti-Whites and hostile elites are adamant about shutting down White advocacy organizations as they see such as competing for control of the environment as well as awakening a potential White revolution.
But why are conservatives, who are in the main White, horrified about even the prospect of White advocacy? And especially those conservatives who glorify the US Constitution with that First Amendment!
One observation is that many conservatives maintain a vision where all races-colors-creeds rally to the banner of Starship America, liberty and justice for all, sea to shining star sea. But if conservatives had to face the reality that the non-White crewmembers (mostly) do not have this same vision, and indeed are hostile to Trad America, then they would have to deal with the reality they are no longer running the Starship bridge, nor for that matter the engine room, sickbay or shuttle bay.
People have their delusions and conservatives are living theirs of still being in the captain’s chair and not a one way trip out the airlock, though perhaps some are starting to realize they are the midst of a holo-dream.
Meantime, the countdown continues on the self-destruct sequence.
“But if conservatives had to face the reality that the non-White crewmembers (mostly) do not have this same vision, and indeed are hostile to Trad America, then they would have to deal with the reality they are no longer running the Starship bridge, nor for that matter the engine room, sickbay or shuttle bay.”
@Francis XB – I thought the above was very, very well said. Bravo!
Very well said. Bravo!
He renounces his biological identity as a white person, even as he embraces his biological identity as a male.
Tucker and other conservatives seem oblivious to how their post-racial ideas are a historical anomaly which occupies a mere knife edge between eternities. Nobody before nor after would ever even entertain these nonsensical notions of equality and hyper individualism.
Mr. Johnson, you are truly an outstanding writer – this article was a joy to read. I can think of no one else (besides perhaps Jared Taylor) who best summarizes the many frustrations I experience as a white person living under an openly anti-white regime. Your articles are measured, sensible, well-reasoned, and written with a calm urgency that inspires hope. We’re approaching a point where anti-whites will say, “We don’t want to exterminate you,” while they line us up against the wall opposite the firing squad. It is reassuring to know there are others out there who recognize the impending threat. Thank you for all you do, and keep up the outstanding work.
Thanks so much! Always good to hear from new readers.
Well said Michelle.
Recent articles have come out showing that:
1. In the past 4 years, the number of white men on corporate boards has decreased by 10%. 10% decrease in 4 years! Astounding!!
2. A Stanford student recently published a report saying that in the past ten years, acceptance of whites has dropped 18%. When this was pointed out to the University, they acknowledged that this was intentional. You know how they acknowledged it? They sent out an email apologizing to the, “Jewish Community.”
That kind of purge directly at the top has to hit directly within Tucker’s circles. I am going to send the relevant information to the link that James Kirkpatrick provided. In any case Michelle, welcome and it is great to have new people coming in who see and believe what they are telling us in their words and their actions. They want us subjugated at best if not gone altogether.
Tucker Carlson is part of the same WASP ruling class that has consistently betrayed the White working class to the depredations of judeo-leftism for more than a century. His identity politics is that of protecting the interests of rich people of all races. Money is the magic substance that converts all races into ‘the human race’ as far a people of Tucker’s class are concerned and it doesn’t matter what happens to White working class people unless it interferes with his ability to get a sandwich.
For me, this is the single best comment on this subject. Well said.
Maybe I spend too much time online (definitely) but I do feel that change is in the air. You have a lot of patience Greg, thanks for all the work you do.
Tucker Carlson is the best of contemporary conservatism, but he is not a white nationalist. Because of this, he has access to the mainstream media and not just to the banned Counter-currents website. I think Tucker knows what’s going on, which is why he supports Orban’s national populism. Tucker Carlson is a similar person to Sir Roger Scruton.
Apparently he shared and complimented a David Cole article so Tucker is most likely a Takimag reader. He should have had Cole on when the ADL called him an anti-Semite.
Rense.com featured a video https://www.bitchute.com/video/kgHoKbdVNrtt/ and an written expose on who Tucker Carson really is https://rense.com/general97/who-is-tucker-carlson.php
The implication being that he is one of them.
Thanks, Greg. I don’t use the term white identity, but if I did I’d capitalize the word White. Pro-White is adequate in my book.
I admired Tucker back in 1996 when he wrote “With Friends Like Dees…” for The Weekly Standard magazine — archived at the WashingtonExaminer.com site. Who couldn’t admire this man, still in his 20s then, for exposing barrator Morris Dees and his SPLC as fraudulent?
My admiration wore off as I’d see the telegenic libertarian regularly toeing the Jewish line, but never crossing it. That was too much for me to expect from this media darling.
I still watch Tuck occasionally on Fox, to see if he’s signing off each night that he’s a “sworn enemy of lies, hypocrisy, etc, and group think.” That group think thing always gets me. Tucker is a member of a group, the White race. He has a beautiful family. but he doesn’t want Whites to think or act as a group for our interests. He doesn’t mind that Jews, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBT think and act as a groups. Tucker is two-faced.
I’m unable to put links here, but other informative, anti-Tucker articles from White loyalist writers Tanstaffl, John Massaro, Thomas Dalton, Douglas Mercer — especially Mercer — and others can be found at nationalvanguard.org by putting ‘tucker carlson’ in the search block there.
I can’t believe I ever thought this goofy dork was ever presidential material. This is unforgivable. To whom is this elitist snob trying to impress? He listed off all the cliche SJW buzzwords (nazi, ‘skin color’ etc) and even used feminine vulgarity (‘fuck off’), while refusing to let another white representative hypothetically speak for him. He has really revealed himself in these candid interviews lately for some reason. He sleeps with FOUR dogs in his bed. I love dogs, but even that makes me retch. His feminine laugh, stupid stare with his mouth agape. It’s all gotten stale by now. I think Cucker should go back to playing the bowtie fall guy to Jon Liebowitz. He is the ‘future self and me’ of Patrick Casey. Both magically transform themselves like chameleons to fit into what container they slip into. As disappointing as Trump turned out to be regarding the ethno-state, I’ll say it again and again, there is no protege or even close second. That is why I said we have to embrace and wring every ounce of usage we can from him no matter what because he’s the best we are ever going to get. Once he is gone, that’s it. Nobody else can reverse political rivers like he does. All of these people followed his lead because they knew they were finished otherwise. What happened the moment Trump got into hot water? These snakes all try to go their own way to back their anachronistic halcyon of neoconservatism. They cannot be trusted. Trump kept these people honest despite all of his flaws, failures and Zionist apologetics. It was similar to Rush Limbaugh’s stranglehold on the GOP. Two years after his demise and he still has no replacement to fill his shoes. He was right, ‘there is nobody else (like me).’
Excellent comments! Tucker’s description was to the point and hilarious!
What are the best videos on White identity to show normie conservatives? Is there any sort of short documentary on this?
I feel like it’s a gap out there. The only documentaries I know are Europa The Last Battle and The Greatest Story Never Told. But they go all the way. Which is not what is needed for most, for now.
All of the videos of the late Jonathan Bowden are still on youtube and the American National Radio Network shows on podbean, especially with Clint Eastwooden Doors and Mike Sledge are notably informative and funny.
I’ll bet Jared Taylor at AmRen has some good introductory-level presentations. The main video archive is here: https://www.amren.com/archives/videos/
See also: https://odysee.com/@AmericanRenaissance:7
Yes! Jared Taylor’s videos are an excellent introduction into issues of race for normie conservatives. Taylor doesn’t “go all the way” or discuss disturbing or frightening truths that normies are not ready for.
There are Vertigo Politix (mirror accounts) videos on YT. “The Fall of California” is the best one, but they are all brilliant. Also, American Krogan’s review of “A Time to Kill” on Odysee. Devon Stack’s Black Pilled videos on YT are great, particularly “The Future is Black (and Female)”. Understanding the propaganda fed us is very powerful.
Did he get banned/shadow banned? I really enjoyed his videos.
Thanks for the link to tucker carlson tonight. I sent tuck a challenge to play poker, and a link to this great, enlightened article.
Thanks so much. He’d simply reply that he wants all the different people to drop their race cards. Of course they won’t. Not even if he asks nicely. Why abandon a winning strategy because the losers ask you nicely?
Like it or not, the central self-defeat comes from the ritual NAZI condemnation. As long as we cannot openly admit that NS had some very reasonable concepts (not only on race) we are fighting against ourselves.
Do we really have to talk about the Third Reich in order to, say, return to America’s 1924 immigration policy?
I am the last one to recommend entering that mine field, I appreciate your work too much.
But the Right is boasting much about “truth”: TRUTH is on our side and that’s why we will win.
Truth is that 90 years ago our European cousins – indistinguishable from Americans – fought the battle we are facing now. The values they proclaimed are 80% overlapping with ours: importance of race, identity, ethnic interests, family values, youth education, environment protection, health (tobacco,cancer), Jews destroying our culture, you name it.
You try to avoid that, ok. However, even if you don’t talk about NS, your adversaries will. And then you have the choice:
a) not entering NS policy discussions or – worse – condemning them
b) comparing your White Identity concepts with NS concepts
With a) you will end up being a hypocrite, with b) you will be obliged to state “… that means Hitler was (partly) right!” as commenter Le Fauconnier above put it.
Not an easy choice, but one that we will have to make.
Jews and Nazis have one big thing in common: they want to derail any sensible discussion of immigration, demographics, eugenics, and multiculturalism by talking about the Third Reich. I get why the Jews do it: it is a useful tool for getting what they want. As for the Nazis, they lose sight of practical concerns quite quickly. For them, it is an intensely important but essentially academic question. For me, it is just a distraction. There are plenty of truths that support White Nationalism that can be drawn from history, philosophy, the human sciences, and the daily news. There are so many truths that we have to be selective about them. Jews and people who think like them love to cite the Nazis because they want to trip us up. I think we should just step over them and move forward.
I see it that way: I’m not a nazi… (primarily because I’m pan-european, not exclusively pro-german), but I want to have a pan-european version of racialism, imbued with fanaticism equal to that of nazis. That’s the reason why all these non-nazi white racialists, have been up until now always losing, they were too liberal, too conservative, instead of being fanaticised revolutionaries like nazis and other fascists of old. So: yeah we don’t need to speak about NS all the time, but let us create sth just as revolutionary, as fanatical as NS! Or even more!
National socialism isn’t any more inherently pro-German than communism is inherently pro-Russian.
@Aleksy
I know… but the problem is with the people. OUR people. I have been trying to preach NS to Poles, but the results were miserable, in fact they were the exact opposite of what I’ve wanted to achieve. I’m a Silesian, btw., my ancestors, although ethnically rather polish, have had german citizenship, served in Wehrmacht, etc. That’s why I have (had) positive attitude towards Hitler & NS & Third Reich, unlike the other Poles. The only thing I have “accomplished” by my propaganda, was to involve myself in endless shitstorms about invasion on Poland, destruction of Warsaw, holocaust etc. Hopeless cause, to say the least. That’s why I believe it’s better to distance ourselves from “that guy with a moustache”. Let us concentrate on building TOGETHER a better future for ALL white peoples, and on things which can unite us and help us achieve that goal, instead of wasting time and energy on things which divide us.
I enjoyed the poker metaphor. The game is for lack of better words… rigged. Not playing the game could take the form of a strike of white workers in white professions like truckers, pilots, and train engineers. A strike of this nature would reek havoc. Imagine the optics of ostensibly leftwing politicians and media outlets along with antifa loosing it over white workers going on strike. The thought of purple haired antifa goons with Soros funded professionally design signs demanding white workers stop striking and get back to work is almost too absurd for the clown world meme we are living in.
I think that Mr. Carlson, like many conservatives, would like to go back to an era before identity politics, when voters chose who represented them based on ideology, not identity.
It’s hard to believe that, at least for me, that era passed less than a decade ago following the election of Donald Trump. I was an Obama voter, I thought we were going to enter this post-racial America and sing kumbaya and always just look at the individual. The end of Obama’s last term began to suggest that this would not be the case. As a Democrat at the time, I was nonetheless disappointed with all the anti-white rhetoric going on. I went from being sick of identity politics to seeing that all politics are identity politics. White people seeing themselves as a group and having group interests is simply the result of the poker game metaphor Greg used.
I would like to urge the readers here to plan to go to college, if you haven’t already, and study finance. If Whites do not have adequate riches in their life, it will hinder their ability to fight back against the continual harassment from the Left and our other enemies. Yes, you may major in Philosophy, History, Art, Literature and even Bronze Age Archeology, but please minor in Finance, so that you will learn the machinations of our enemies, while learning to make a grand living for yourself — and your spouse and many children. Money is freedom for our men and security for the women. It’s how we survive and become useful. And stop the useless philosophical squabbling over Socialism vs. Capitalism. Our enemies are experts in both and sit in our banks and rob us using both systems. Outsmart them!
Always remember: “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”
My response to that question is always “If they’re so rich, why aren’t they smart?” Many of the wealthy that I’ve met are underwhelming.
Based on my experience, rich people are often very smart, but they are seldom interested in the things I care about.
As Tucker says, it is mostly white people that irritate him. And we know the vast majority of the left are white. They are idiotic enough to believe minorities won’t come for them too when they’re in power. The minorities all know they only need to play the long game and allow leftist whites concede everything. Whites truly need our own space removed from all minorities. Leftists could join in as long as they accept the purity of the space. It’s fun to dream about, but difficult to imagine implementation.
Agree with the gist. My 3 points –
1) Can Tucker and company instead live with a movement that is not ‘pro white identity’, but ‘against anti-white policies’? Building allies sometimes meeting them where they are.
2) Great Replacement is a decent term, White Genocide is a lousy term. The left easily shoots this down and start riffing that failure of whites to breed is leading to conspiracy theories that we are being marched off to extermination camps. Deaths of despair, Fentanyl, etc. I get it. But the left quickly dissolves theatrics and an important message never makes it undecideds or proto-conservatives. The chart showing demographic change in population since the time of Ted Kennedy’s immigration act… a picture worth a million words.
3) More discussion about immigration and affirmative action and less distraction from the trans alphabet and vaccines. Current immigration and anti-white affirmative action together is wildly unfair to whites at all strata. The combination is replacement.
1. What would that movement look like? “We are opposed to anti-white policies, but don’t accuse us of liking white people!” That amount of appeasement out of the gate would not bode well. About the best that today’s conservatives can give us is “Stop attacking white people! They might collectivize to resist, and nothing is worse than that.” We can’t get anywhere without dismantling the silly taboos the enemy put in place against white collectivism. That’s why they put them in place.
2. I don’t think White Genocide is a bad term. It is certainly not bad because Leftists can lie about it. By that token, so is the Great Replacement, since they lie about it too. Nothing the Left says about either term can stand up to five minutes of calm counter-argument.
3. I agree.
2. The left doesn’t engage in calm counter-argument. Those are the ‘rules’ of their war. Their response to “White Genocide” is that it is factually wrong and a conspiracy theory. They immediately shut it down and the real details get do not get discussed. When they talk about ‘Replacement’, they generally need to give some definition of what is meant by replacement, which is more apt to stimulate thought. Of course its only a matter of time that a loon on our end will suggest replacement means a conspiracy to clone us, ala Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
1. Rallying against anti-whiteness doesn’t look different at all. But choice of words matter. Just a few years back the right was making inroads on the concept of equality. Even within a family unit, each member is not equal in temperament, drive or talents. Outcomes may vary and good/bad fortune sometimes at play. As the right began to get traction in this area amongst the middle and some of the left feeling the heat, suddenly the drive for equality became equity (the government deux ex machina stages equal outcomes by discriminating against whites). Maybe it doesn’t necessarily come from here, but I believe the approach helps bring center-left folks faster on their journey rightward.
This concise, incisive and insightful polemic and proselytizing essay is priceless and invaluable, exceedingly well-argued and persuasive, with premium class clarity and impeccable logic, the very best quality and character that is emblematic of our great Greg. The “taboo” about white racial identity in GOP and mainstream conservative politics that is highlighted in this article hit the bull’s eyes on the target and strikingly demonstrated and revealed the intellectual laziness and moral cowardice of the GOP and its rigid, ossified, and listless political thinking, which is truly pathetic and lamentable and must be, and can be changed in a long run with the patient, wise, efficient and painstaking efforts of our side.
This essay has one thousand reasons to be sent to Mr. Carlson to be read and perused by Tucker himself. Here I strongly encourage and urge Greg to do so promptly, either by sending it as an email to Tucker’s email address, or by other conceivable and viable means if there is such a better one. It genuinely deserves to be read by Tucker, which would surely provoke his further thinking and edify and move him to our direction in a quiet and sublime way. Considering his immense influence and popularity, as well as his fledgling inclinations and sympathetic tendencies to our cause, TC is perhaps one of the most, if not the single most important personality, and for that reason a tremendous asset, in the established big media of mainstream right to be drawn to our side potentially as a great ally.
Down with censorship! Long live freedom of speech!
Even though Tucker is too “soft” for me, to spend my precious time listening to him, it seems that he was too “radical” for the media bosses. What a world in which I live: no chance to get a good job for people with my views (who are sincere about them). These people who are in power now have taken everything from me, but I don’t intend to lament on this fact, instead from now on I’ll fight to take back what is rightfully mine!
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.