Tucker Carlson Endorses White Identity Politics in South Africa

Tucker Carlson interviewing Ernst Roets

1,845 words

Tucker Carlson has gained a well-deserved reputation for calling attention to the hypocrisies and shortcomings of the mainstream right, and for covering stories that most conservative media figures are too cowardly to touch. Since his departure from FOX News two years ago, Carlson has conducted several praiseworthy interviews on his own independent podcast. For example, he has discussed the power of the Israel Lobby with maverick congressman Thomas Massie. He has also invited on Lydia Brimelow of VDARE to talk about that organization’s legal battle against the state of New York, has denounced Christian Zionist theology during an interview with Palestinian pastor Munther Isaac, and has promoted the work of race realist blogger Steve Sailer.

Before last week, I would have said that his boldest decision was to host historian Darryl Cooper for a conversation that included some long overdue criticism of Winston Churchill and the broader Jewish-centric mainstream narrative of the Second World War. It is true Carlson has ardently denied holding any “racist” beliefs on a number of occasions, and often lapses into colorblind conservative talking points. Even so, a regular viewer of Carlson’s show will have been exposed to a considerable amount of normally-suppressed information that undermines the moral foundations that the ruling American Regime uses to justify its power.

Many a perceptive Carlson fan has been left to ponder some difficult questions about the legitimacy of the current system, and may well have found his or her way to dissident websites like Counter-Currents. Whether intentionally or not, Carlson has served as a bridge between the blend of milquetoast civic nationalism and fanatical Zionism offered by the MAGA movement, and the white identity politics and unapologetic racialism that we advocate. Out of all commentators and influencers in the pro-Trump sphere, I think it is fair to say that Carlson has done the most to introduce our ideas to a wider audience. And that audience is not a small one, as Carlson’s show routinely draws hundreds of thousands of viewers on YouTube, with some episodes- including his interview with Cooper- attracting upwards of one million views.

But from a white identitarian perspective, Carlson has not been without his weaknesses. This is best illustrated by his 2023 interview with comedian Adam Carolla, when Carlson, despite acknowledging the demographic replacement of whites in the United States, referred to white identity politics as a “Nazi idea.”

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!”

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.”

At the time, Greg Johnson wrote the following about Tucker’s position on white identity politics:

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.

I am happy to report that, in a most welcome development, Carlson has changed his tune regarding the legitimacy of white identity, even going so far as to flirt with explicit White Nationalism. This radical shift in Carlson’s worldview was on full display throughout the course an interview he conducted with Afrikaner activist Dr. Ernst Roets about the persecution of South Africa’s white minority at the hands of that country’s black-dominated government. The situation in South Africa has received increased attention following Donald Trump’s executive order to limit foreign aid to that country “to the maximum extent allowed by law” and to “promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.” For his part, South African president Cyril Ramaphosa has doubled down on his commitment to seize Afrikaner farms without compensation.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Dr. Roets is the former Deputy CEO of AfriForum, an organization that openly and unapologetically advocates for the interests of Afrikaners. In other words, it exists for the purpose of engaging in precisely the sort of identity politics that Carlson has disavowed. That he would invite someone like Roets to be a guest on his show at all is a major step in the right direction. Yet, the conversation between Carlson and Roets exceeded all of my most optimistic expectations, as this man who was once a fierce critic of white identity politics expressed agreement with all of his guest’s arguments, including Roets’ support for Afrikaner separatism. The interview was made all the more enjoyable because of Carlson’s extensive knowledge of the history of South Africa. Furthermore, the indignation Carlson displayed because of the mistreatment of Afrikaners appeared completely genuine. To my great surprise and satisfaction, Carlson was every bit as bold as Roets in condemning the anti-white actions of the South African government and asserting the legitimacy of white solidarity in the face of this persecution.

Throughout the course of the interview, there were several points made by Roets and Carlson that should be of interest to White Nationalists not only in South Africa, but everywhere. Here are just a few:

• Roets and Carlson both agree that the feeling of racial guilt common among whites stems at least in part from the Second World War. In one particularly interesting exchange, Roets claimed that “the wrong lesson from the Second World War is that nationalism is evil or a sense of pride in your identity is evil.” Carlson followed this with the observation that “I don’t think anyone thought that the lesson of the war was that nationalism is evil, only that nationalism when whites do it is evil.”
• Carlson condemns the idea that White Nationalism is any less legitimate than any other variety of nationalism, and maintains that if nationalism is morally acceptable for nonwhites, then it must also be morally acceptable for whites. “As long as some groups have the right to self-determination” insisted Carlson “then every group has the right, it’s just that simple.”
• Roets argued, and Carlson concurred, that the racial and ethnic diversity of South Africa is not a strength, but a weakness, and that all South Africans would be better off in a less centralized state that allowed greater autonomy for its various peoples.
• Carlson and Roets both defended the all-white South African community of Orania.
• Roets proposed that the most promising solution for Afrikaners is to form homogenous independent communities that are highly conscious of their ethnic and racial identity.
• Roets and Carlson both feel that the United States, because of its role in bringing about the collapse of the former white-run South African government in 1994 and the triumph of the current regime, has an obligation to support Afrikaner self-determination.

I am unable to recall another recent example of a mainstream American commentator endorsing the idea that whites should organize on the basis of race. The last such instance may have come when Washington Times columnist Sam Francis gave a speech at the 1994 American Renaissance Conference that included the following passage:

Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites. The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons. In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundations of our solidarity while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites.

After his subsequent dismissal from the Washington Times, Francis only became bolder in his statements on racial matters. Likewise, since losing his job at FOX News, Carlson has been more open to challenging taboos relating to race. However, while Francis was essentially purged from the mainstream right after walking off the colorblind conservative plantation, a similar fate has not befallen Tucker Carlson. Among Carlson’s guests in the previous four months have been Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan. Furthermore, Carlson apparently met with the president at the White House just last month. It is not an everyday occurrence that a close political ally of a sitting president publicly defends White Nationalism. I see this as a major victory for our cause, and a sign of positive things to come.

It should be emphasized that Carlson has only endorsed white separatism in South Africa, not in the United States. Still, the same principles that Roets and Carlson both agree justify the self-determination of Afrikaners can also be applied in the case of the United States, as well as Canada, Australia and Europe. I believe Carlson recognizes this. In the closing minutes of their conversation, Roets claimed that, “In many ways South Africa is the future of the western world.” To which Carlson replied, “I know.”

As of this writing, just under 675,000 individuals have viewed the interview on YouTube. Plenty of them, I am sure, have already forgotten all about the Afrikaners, and their attentions have shifted to the next news item. Others will fail to grasp just what Roets and Carlson mean when they call South Africa “the future of the western world.” But there are some among that 675,000 who, perhaps for the first time, fully understand that whites everywhere must organize in order to avoid such a future. For this we should be thankful.