1,571 words
On December 18th, Tucker Carlson took the stage at Turning Point USA’s AmFest with a message from Yahweh: it is immoral to notice that His chosen people work together as a team against the interests of individualists like Tucker himself.
At least that is how I interpreted the following:
I’m not an anti-Semite for a very specific reason. Not because it’s unpopular, or my donors don’t like it, I don’t have any donors. I’m not an anti-Semite because anti-Semitism is immoral. In my religion, it is immoral to hate people for how they were born. Period.
But that is not a limited principle. That is a universal principle. It applies to every human being on planet Earth. You may not, you are prohibited by my religion, which is Christianity, from hating people for how they were born. Because God created them with his spark in his image. Because they have souls.
You can disagree with them. You can hate their ideas. You may even find yourself, and I do, I’ll confess it, hating them for a moment. But you can’t hate everyone who’s like them. You can’t punish people for crimes they didn’t commit. That’s the basis of our justice system. That’s the basis of Christian ethics. That’s why we have what are called human rights.
. . . we don’t consider people in terms of the groups to which they belong. We consider them as individuals the way that God created them.
. . . You are not allowed to hate people based on their bloodline. We do not believe in blood guilt.
I see things very differently. First of all, groups are real. Second, groups have different identities and interests. Third, because of these differences, groups inevitably have conflicts of interest. There is no reason for these conflicts to get ugly, but the more different groups that share the same society, the greater the chances of hatred and violence.
This is why I am an ethnonationalist: I think the best societies are the least diverse, thus I support having borders. I support the right of distinct peoples to their own sovereign homelands where they can live as they please. And I support the remigration of millions of nonwhites who were imposed on white countries in a totalitarian social engineering experiment called “multiculturalism.” Separating different groups is the key to peace and harmony.
You can order Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here
Thus, when I see members of groups with different identities and interests, I am wary. This is not because they are “guilty” of something. It is just because of who they are. My wariness is not a “punishment” for a crime. Guilt and innocence, crime and punishment, love and hate don’t come into this. For instance, I am wary of blacks for the same reason I am wary of pitbulls: they are a dangerous breed, nothing more. There’s no need to make this into some sort of moral drama.
The same is true of immigration policies. I don’t want closed borders and remigration simply because some non-white immigrants are criminal but because even the best non-white immigrants don’t belong in white societies. They aren’t “guilty” of anything. They are just incompatible, but that’s enough. Keeping them out or sending them back is not “punishing” them. Nor is it anything personal, like “hatred.”
Tucker talks about “hate” like it is always a bad thing. But everybody hates someone, and it is hypocritical posturing to pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is perfectly reasonable and healthy to hate people who have personally injured you, especially if you get no justice. It is also perfectly reasonable to hate people who deny you justice.
Yes, hate is bad if it is totally baseless. This is why anti-racists like to talk about “hating strangers merely for the color of their skin.” It seems crazy to have deep personal feelings of antipathy (“hate”) for complete strangers based on superficial traits. But it is not “hate” when, for instance, a young white woman decides to avoid black or Muslim men because they belong to a rape-prone population.
In short, this rhetoric about “hate” is designed to make conscientious people more vulnerable to dangerous people. (People who lack conscience are immune to such guilt propaganda.) Telling you to “Never relax around blacks” is not “hate.” It is just a prudent safety measure, akin to buckling one’s seatbelt. Not every black man is a criminal. Not every car trip ends with a crash. But taking simple precautions to avoid becoming a victim makes it less likely that blacks will give you a good reason to hate them.
Becoming a racist was very difficult for me, because I am an individualist by inclination. But there are billions of people on this planet, and we simply do not have time to deal with each and every one of them as an individual. Thus we need shortcuts. One such shortcut is to play the odds. Fortunately, individuals come in packs, and packs have different traits. Of course, we understand that “Not all Xs are like that,” but some Xs are more likely to be like that than others, and in a world where time and information are scarce, we would be fools to ignore group differences.
Thus making a moral imperative of “colorblind” individualism is crazy. First of all, you can’t practice it, so you are always “guilty.” Second, to the extent that you do practice it, it makes you stupid because it tells you that basic inductive reasoning—which is the foundation of common sense as well as science—is a sin. Third, to the extent that you practice it, it also makes you vulnerable, because you will be just as friendly to pitbulls as you are to poodles.
Eventually, I began to be suspicious of the preachers of “blindness” as a virtue. Perhaps they were up to no good. Specifically, what if the preachers of colorblind individualism were working together as a collective to subvert and dominate an individualist society?
The trick is simple: preach individualism and practice collectivism. When they want something from you, they demand to be treated as individuals. When you want something from them, they will pretend to give you a fair shake, but ultimately, they will give any benefits to members of their tribe.
Now, if a tribe of grifters wanted to keep you from noticing that they work together as a collective, wouldn’t they preach the virtue of color-blind individualism to you? Wouldn’t they make it a moral imperative not to notice that you are being swindled?
This brings us to the question of anti-Semitism. The so-called “Jewish Question” is back. The Jewish Question first emerged in the eighteenth century, when under the influence of the Enlightenment, Jews were given equal rights in the nations where they lived. The question was simple: Since Jews are a nation unto themselves, who have survived in a diaspora because of their intense ethnocentrism, won’t giving them equal rights in their host societies in effect give them dual citizenship and unfair advantages over their neighbors? Won’t it allow Jews to be collectivist cheats in an individualist society? The answer, of course, is: Yes.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Game theory shows that collectivist strategies will defeat individualist strategies. Thus we would expect collectivist groups to become increasingly wealthy and powerful by gaming the system in individualist societies. We would also expect that the achievements of such groups would be over and above what you would expect if they were living in a genuinely “colorblind meritocracy.”
America’s ruling elites are fed largely by the Ivy League universities, Harvard chief among them. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Harvard and other prominent American universities had policies to keep Jewish enrollment low, below the levels one would predict based simply on merit alone. However, after anti-Semitic enrollment policies were dismantled, the number of Jews in Harvard’s administration, faculty, and student body soared.
Was this merely “meritocracy” at work? Ron Unz’s landmark essay “The Myth of American Meritocracy” argues persuasively that Jews are massively overrepresented at Harvard and that ethnic nepotism is largely to blame. Thus Jews gained a foothold at Harvard by demanding that whites treat them as individuals. Then, once established, they expanded their presence through nepotism at the expense of whites.
Of course, Jews are not unique in being a highly ethnocentric group. The same is true of Indians and other South Asians. The population of India alone is more than 1,000 times larger than the world Jewish community and consists not just of Hindu castes but of tens of thousands of endogamous tribal communities each of which feels completely justified in victimizing members of other Indian groups. So of course Indian immigrants would have no compunctions about preaching “colorblind meritocracy” to the rest of us while they practice tribal nepotism.
This throws light on the emerging “post woke” American Right. When both fervent Zionists and Indian anchor babies are denouncing anything that smacks of white identity politics as “Woke Right,” they aren’t repudiating identity politics; they are practicing it. They know full well that the only thing that can stop their brand of identity politics is white identity politics, which is why they will do anything they can to forestall its rise.
Courtesy of Millennial Woes
In his AmFest speech, Tucker tries to repudiate both anti-Semitism and anti-white racism by affirming a sort of color-blind Christian universalism:
So anti-Semitism is not just naughty, it’s immoral. And it is precisely as immoral as hating any other group. And that would include other groups in the United States that are hated and have been under attack for decades. And that would include white men, who did nothing to become white men. They were born that way.
But this won’t work. It won’t work on Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss, who are rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of Christians blinding themselves to Jewish cabals. It won’t work on Vivek Scammaswamy and other monkey idol worshipers, either.
If the first step in your solution to America’s problems is for everyone to become Tucker’s brand of Christian, you have no solution at all. In fact, Tucker’s approach can only deepen and prolong our problems by blinding people to their real source and solution.
So couldn’t we just wind things back to a less woke, more colorblind and meritocratic America? Not unless you want to create a secret police force to prevent millions of Indians, Somalians, Jews, and other highly tribal peoples from cheating. But the only way that would happen is if white Americans started practicing an identity politics of our own.
49 comments
I’m Christian, and I agree 100% with you Greg. Another banger essay. Thank you.
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
And to you my friend!
You do have a solid point, likewise championed by Richard Spencer and his Apollo promotion. Christin charity and piousness are a double edged sword. Though create a high trust, kinder society, they also are tolerant and can welcome the blood feuding clan outsiders.
However, Christianity has been the bulwark of European society against the Jew for two millennia, which is why our elite hates Christianity so much. Christianity is one of the few, tangible frameworks of collectivist Caucasian identity and action.
Christianity is not a bulwark against Jews if it makes them central to the sacred history of mankind and admits them to the Christian faith simply by conversion.
Christianity not only is not a bulwark against Judaism it is its handmaiden—a Trojan Horse the Jews used to get inside the gates. As Will Williams says: fact!
…it is immoral to hate people for how they were born. Period.
Great article! My interpretation is that he is pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual, pro-feminist, pro-miscegenous, etc. This guy is no different than a hardcore liberal. 🙃
Tucker Carlson will not bring himself to state a plain, simple fact: People like to form communities with those of their own kind. It’s normal and natural. He also will not notice that white people alone are indulgent of racial self-hatred.
Tucker is on a journey, just like Elon is. It leads to white identity politics in the end.
I think you’re right. One thing Tucker has always done is tease out his thoughts before he fully commits. Maybe that’s just a pracical method used protect his public position, or perhaps he isn’t quite able to accept what he subconsciously understands.
Whatever the case he does seem to be making progress.
I agree. Tucker made a step in our direction when he condemned anti-white hatred as being just as bad as anti-Jew or anti-black hatred. You made a good call, pointing out the Tucker, didn’t mention the coordination of Jews against us. Another good thing to hear from the TPU USA conference was vice president Vance saying that you don’t have to be ashamed of being white in America anymore.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that Greg. In Tucker’s case, I think it may lead to a conversion to Islam. He’s gotten so creepily pro-Mohammedan recently it’s insane. He even called people who don’t want Muslims in America “disgusting” in his AmFest speech. Believe me, you don’t want him anyway. The man is deranged. The last thing we need is another lunatic on our side.
He’s 56. That Oregon Trail journey from the bow tie days and ‘colorblind’ anything (which he doesn’t believe in since he’s not a midwit) to our views should have been completed by now. And if he’s speaking to fox news normies instead of us, mild diet racialist chum thrown to them would have been more appropriate since they’re ready. You can only take them along like an abused, abandoned puppy into a new home for so long.
He definitely believes what we do, like pretty much every male. It’s well known that his writers on Fox plagerized Anglin’s website weekly.
He has to talk in code and give worn out bromides to protect his image and influence.
Yeah, the bow tie, fossil professor crude was probably also an Ivy League social science nerd brand in his earlier fortune accumulation phase.
Is Tucker trying to head off the gimp who named him “anti-semite of the year”? As a counterattack it won’t work on anybody Jewish; more likely he’s signaling to his Christian Zionist pals that his enemies are once again overreacting.
Why Tucker has so many enemies is a mystery. Since Rupert Murdoch fired him he’s been playing defense. He needs to get over that and go on the attack.
Honestly, Kevin MacDonald deserves that title at least once.
Thanks, Greg. Your opening sentence says it all:
—
On December 18th, Tucker Carlson took the stage at Turning Point USA’s AmFest with a message from Yahweh.
—
Yes, the Tuck delivered the widely promoted message to millions of young, mostly White, gullible Christian Zionists from his adopted mythical Jewish tribal deity up in the sky. He should instead have defined Semitism to the gathered and for those watching for what it is = Jewish supremacy.
—
Ron Unz’s landmark essay “The Myth of American Meritocracy” argues persuasively that Jews are massively overrepresented at Harvard…
—
Duh.
Call me anti-Jew. I am, and for good reason. I do not need a millionaire racial Jew telling me truths about his perfidious Tribe that I already know. Unz is massively overrepresented enough in the White racial separatist/preservationist cause, as it is. How many halfway racially conscious Whites are following him, being defunctionalized on the JQ because he says what we say at his slick Website? Pantywaist Tucker is also massively overrepresented as a White racial leader.
I wonder if Tucker would ever come out and attack the Jewish trope as themselves being the “light“ of the world. I suppose they view the rest of us cave dwelling troglodytes?
Among the more enlightened Jews, they see all that as an injunction to be a good example to the world. I find that unobjectionable.
Representing the not so enlightened opinion, there’s some Talmudic mumbo jumbo to the effect that we’re basically talking farm animals. The writings of the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef are instructive.
I wonder if these people are playing an influency and survival game. The game is, “I’ll go right up to the edge of liberal taboos or even quite beyond, then I’ll say I’m a Christian, and Christianity commands me not to hate”. And the key word is ‘hate’. Hate only became a politically sensitive word through the rabid global activities of Jewish organizations trying to distort the entire world in their favor. It feels like an appeal to that extremely modern meaning of hate.
I actually think though it’s working. It’s working incredibly well for Fuentes. It’s working for Tucker. The reason it’s working is it’s disarming the hardcore center and the anti-white machine enough to ensure survival and actually growth. It’s giving them breathing room.
But it may not work forever, and at some point these people will have to tackle, and be prepared to rethink hate itself.
And the machine does the same thing. It’s been doing it for years. Memeing out what it wants you to feel, no matter what the contradictions. And we’re now in this hyper-influencer age, where information and principles are way down the list compared to reach and engagement and growth.
Christianity appeals to con artists because it grants you instant moral credibility from a vast population of people who, if they can believe God creates the world out of nothing, can believe anything else as well. That’s a perfect audience to fleece. Fuentes is a con artist. Tucker is something else. I sense for him it is more complex.
Tucker actually said that because Christians believe in redemption, any man can go from enemy to leader in an instant. Then he gave the example of Saul of Tarsus. After those words, the lightbulb going off in Ben Shapiro’s head reportedly blew his kippa clean off. Stay tuned for a Christmas miracle!
And the hilarious thing is that Fuentes and his cultists are some of the most genuinely hateful creatures on Earth. Malice and spite ooze out of their pores. It’s not even a principled hatred, but pure 4chan nihilism, hatred of all that’s good and pure, hatred of life and existence itself.
If Tucker doesn’t want to endorse White Identity that’s his business, but I could do without the moral lecturing about principles he obviously doesn’t really believe.
He was speaking to an audience that is very politically engaged, aware of race realism and the Jewish Question, and open to White Identity politics. I’m not a Christian, but I don’t believe that White Identity or even White Nationalism is incompatible with Christianity. The Boers are Christians, the Confederates and the Klan and the segregationists were Christians, and the German National Socialists were mostly Christian.
But, when addressing a crowd of young White right-wingers who he knew are overwhelmingly Christian, Tucker basically told them “Don’t organize as Whites because your God says that’s not allowed.”
Hopefully most of the Whites who watched him speak are smart enough not to buy into that.
Regardless, if the best argument that the “colorblind” crowd has is an oversimplified and inaccurate interpretation of the Bible, then we can be sure their efforts will fail.
It is not accurate to say that most National Socialists were Christian, it’s true they hedged about it early on as a sop to public opinion, but the long term goal was Christianity’s eradication. And the top NS Leadership, and particularly SS leadership, were vehemently anti-Christian, the religion they had was Gottglaubig.
Douglas Mercer: December 25, 2025… It is not accurate to say that most National Socialists were Christian, it’s true they hedged about it early on as a sop to public opinion, but the long term goal was Christianity’s eradication…
—
Not a bad long-term goal. You are absolutely correct, Douglas. The two — NS and Christianity — are opposed ideologies. Irreconcilable. Mr. Chambers is mistaken to say Jew-spawned Christianity is compatible with WI, WN, or NS.
—
Dave Chambers wrote: I don’t believe that White Identity or even White Nationalism is incompatible with Christianity. The Boers are Christians, the Confederates and the Klan and the segregationists were Christians, and the German National Socialists were mostly Christian.
—
Question: What one thing do Dave’s highlighted “Christian” groups have in common?
Answer: They all lost.
If Whites are to prevail in the recognized, eternal struggle for survival against the Jewish race, they must put the Jews’ silly Yahweh creed behind them once and for all and organize purposefully for preservation of the best of their kind.
Racial separation of Whites with their own, non-Semetic belief system, is a must.
You are an excellent writer, Douglas. To me, one of your best essays was this from last summer: “The Vessel” at nationalvanguard.org. It should inspire fence sitters and Christians to rethink our noble cause.
by Douglas Mercer
WILLIAM LUTHER PIERCE is the greatest racial thinker of all time; his precursors such as Madison Grant were prophets and showed us the way, but as they still lived in the time of White ascendancy, they were unable to fully see all the dangers that were to come.
George Lincoln Rockwell deserves all of our praise, but he was a swashbuckler and a performer and did not have the intellectual weight of Pierce, something which is necessary to see us through dark times.
Revilo Oliver was an unparalleled intellectual; it is said of him that he had the mind and the manners of a Renaissance prince or polymath combined with the untethered and weaponized language needed to decimate our opponents; Oliver was also not a religious man and as such was unable to go all the way down the path needed.
Pierce was of another ilk; a true intellectual, but a practical one also, concerned with our survival in the real world — and here his background in physics held him in good stead. But in addition to being a thinker and writer and speaker, Pierce was also a visionary, a seer and a holy man, the prophet of our time; he always kept his eyes on eternity; he knew that our destiny was in the stars and that in order to achieve this we needed to plan for the long future. He knew that, for our Creator, the Aryan race was its special and Promethean people; the only people who could bring the Creator’s fire to the Earth and usher in the completion of the cosmos. As such, Pierce, in addition to being a polemicist of rare vehemence, and an artist in words, was also a far-seeing man with the organizational skills to prepare for this endless future.
The National Alliance is now the vessel of the Creator on Earth, its members the worthy heirs of Pierce’s philosophy and religion — the only ones on the path.
All throughout American history, the idea of Utopian or intentional communities has been prevalent; there was Brooks Farm of the Transcendentalists; but our great precursor Poe saw their un-serious nature and their other flaws, and scathingly called them “frog-pondians.”
In our own time, such “communes” are more likely to be of the ilk of “Burning Man” — dedicated only to pleasure and frivolity; or like Jonestown, monuments to one man’s ego, ending in death and destruction. But the impulse to separate, to keep oneself pure, is a noble one; and the National Alliance has first and foremost kept its thought pure with its book Cosmotheism: Religion of the Future and its other equally uncompromising publications; it is building this separate community, and building a library dedicated to its founder and its ideals; it is a community dedicated to keeping the White race pure, and keeping it separate….
Read the rest of this essay at the link.
The “color of their skin” argument has completely fallen apart due to how asymmetrical racial hatred is in certain societies. We can now see it matches 1:1 with how insular and nepotistic they are, how in-group orientated and hostile to outsiders. Indians cop more hatred than Indonesians, Somalians cop more hatred than the other blacks. Somalians are even hated by the other Blacks in America. Somalians, Indians, Jews, Gypsies, etc, all have a clannish, tribalistic culture in common. If a race or nationality ends up hated, it ends up hated by everyone, for pretty much the same listed reasons.
There’s just a fracturing in the mythology of racism coming from a supposed white supremacist core, used to uphold white supremacy, because most of the recent racial hatred is actually new and originates in this multiracial system, and most of it is coming from non-whites. We loved Indians here back in the 1970s-2000s, had hippies obsessed with their culture, thought they were wise mystics. The degeneration of that reputation over the last ten years has absolutely been caused by the behavior of Indians, and isn’t at all some irrational impulse sitting in the minds of literally every other race.
“Hating for the color of their skin” just seems so quaint now, like it’s a phrase that’s escaped a time-capsule from the 1960s, when it was just blacks and whites.
Good comment. Diversity has created not tolerance but a minefield of new hatreds between groups with no connections before arriving in America.
America truly is a magical land of opportunity! Where else are Hatians and Hmong going to learn to hate one another? Where else are black and Cambodian gangs going to fight?
Though we should not have settled for such conditions, the irony is long before woke and diversity is our strength messaging become mandated mantras at gunpoint, Apollo Creed and Mr. Miyagi were well liked enough to withstand kathleen kennedy’s junk and had a natural place in movie lore that wasn’t forced as color-quotas like today. Paul Lynde and Liberace weren’t the awful andy cohen and ellen, nor did Aliens’ Ripley need to screech how strong and independent empowered she was, and despite the antiWhite nature of the series, Riggs and Murtaugh seemed a believable duo to root for (Not against White Afrikaners ). What worked well enough quietly then fell flat as screaming exhaustive propaganda now.
No, racial awareness does not come from a core of white supremacy. White supremacy has been a catastrophic failure for the white race, from American slavery and Jim Crow, to South African apartheid, to European colonization of Africa. I stay on the idea of white separatism. We have a right to form our own communities and the set barriers of entry to who gets in and who doesn’t. Distinct peoples, distinct homelands.
If you could take every last white man, woman, and child out of this country, with the remaining groups left, you would see a race war the likes of which this world has never seen.
Doug Harrison: December 25, 2025 … I stay on the idea of white [sic] separatism. We have a right to form our own communities and the set barriers of entry to who gets in and who doesn’t…
—
Exactly, according to Nature’s highest law: survival of one’s own kind.
Like Senator Bilbo wisely warned decades ago in still racially healthier times: separate or amalgamate! Most Whites believe that “freedom of association” was a core freedom guaranteed by our White forefathers who crafted the U.S. Constitution for their progeny all those years ago — but they are wrong.
Freedom of assembly, not association, was one of the core freedoms. That “right” has practically been abrogated — witness the Whites that assembled with the required permits to demonstrate for their racial interests in Charlottesville eight years ago. The System opposed them and supported the anti-White counter demonstrators. Fact!
To freely associate among those of our own kind — not just any whites, like were found at the huge, televised TPUSA rally, but eligible Whites according to our standards — we will separate into our own communities with our own racially loyal belief system. Jews and other non-Whites, whites who worship Yahweh and who enjoy multiracialism and mass democracy, are ineligible and have their own multicultural, multiracial communities.
When the Constitution is used against us, to destroy us, we are no longer bound by it. We make our own rules about who we will associate with for the good of our race in our communities and who will be excluded. Period!
I would also add that I don’t support intraracial miscegenation either as I have Italian ancestry from Naples/Sicily region and Greg made a great point a while back that if you’re going to marry and breed do so with someone people would mistake as your brother or sister. Latins, Nordics, Celts, Slavs, Alpine/Germanics all within their own like a solved rubics cube to ensure the proper functioning of the whole. We are allies, not alloys. The irony that antiWhite vermin call us supremacists and see us as supreme when this is the lowest and most degraded state that Whites have ever been in. I used to see that particular slander as kiki and ray-ray saying we think ourselves to be superior; in actuality they are the ones who do. That’s why they all want in White nations, White neighborhoods within those nations, want White women, and like michael jackson and beyonce, want to become White. Our in-group current status of tragic disappointments, failures and all are to them skyscraper ceilings above their nature compared to their failed endlessly warring collectives.
Uncle Semantic: December 27, 2025 I would also add that I don’t support intraracial [sic] miscegenation either as I have Italian ancestry from Naples/Sicily region and Greg made a great point a while back that if you’re going to marry and breed do so with someone people would mistake as your brother or sister…
—
Yes, Unc, what you and Greg say should be understood by all racially responsible Whites without saying. Once we separate ourselves racially, geographically, and refuse to be influenced at all by non-Whites, the temptation to mix/breed disappears. We’ll be back to normal. We’ll be the “normies.”
To Tucker’s credit he did call out the ADL for being anti white and more especially anti white male.
It is great to hear it. But it doesn’t hold up to support true conclusions with bad arguments.
“. . . we don’t consider people in terms of the groups to which they belong”
But what if the other side does?
“We consider them as individuals the way that God created them.”
But what if the other side believes that God created groups and assigned them different roles in his Divine plan?
Exactly. This is a sucker’s credo. And it is especially suspicious that the source of this credo is the God of the very people who have been playing its followers for suckers for nearly 2,000 years.
“The Myth of American Meritocracy”
^
There’s a study by Helmut Nyborg (“The intelligence-religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans”) that allows us to quantify the relationship between wealth and (verbal-crystallized) IQ for different religions/denominations (based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth).
The data tells us how much group IQ usually raises group wealth.
Very notably, Jewish wealth was far in excess of what their IQ would predict.
Well, what a surprise!
Even then, Jewish intelligence is rather overrated. For one thing, they keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Not just overrated, but miscalculated.
There are bizarre “mistakes” in the secondary literature where Jews are for example compared to a racially mixed group of Christians (that one’s even in The Bell Curve!) or elite Jewish samples from religious private schools are compared to the general white Gentile population.
I’ve been researching Jewish IQ (and IQ in general) extensively this year, and found many examples like the above. The cause isn’t even “Shameless Intelligence Research” (as a cynical observer may expect) but rather a pervasive confirmation bias in IQ circles that Jewish IQ must be really high.
My best estimate, at this point, is an IQ of around 105 (fullscale and g), and a verbal and math IQ of 107-108.
It depends on which subgroup they belong to. The Sephardics, who are closest to being pure Israelites, test similar to their Arab cousins.
The Askenazis, who are nearly half Italian, are rather better off, plausibly around 101 to (at my most generous estimate) 105. Israel’s average IQ is 92, IIRC, and given their ethnic composition, that fits an estimate of 101 for their Ashkenazi citizens. We could be more certain about all this if there were larger studies which are more representative of the general Ashkenazi population.
Addenda:
We can imagine the relationship between wealth and IQ in terms of how many points of WQ (“Wealth Quotient”) you get for every additional point of IQ.
Computing the WQ/IQ ratio for the religious groups in the study that were at least 2 points above average in IQ (for lower IQs, the denominator becomes too small):
Episcopal/Anglican: 0.82
Methodist: 0.98
Jewish: 2.49
i.e. if the WQ-IQ relationship was the same for Jews as for Episocalians/Anglicans or Methodists, their WQ advantage over average Whites would only be 33-39% as high as it actually is. In other words, 61-67% of their excess wealth is not due to IQ.
Moreover:
We can compare this group-level analysis with individual-level data on the WQ-IQ relationship. There we find that for white males in America, (verbal-crystallized) IQ and long-term income have a correlation of about 0.47. Aforementioned data is for both sexes, so the correlation should be lower, but let’s be generous and use 0.47:
That correlation means that a group of people which is +0.467 standard deviations (SDs) above the mean in IQ should be 0.47×0.467 ~= 0.22 SD above the mean in WQ.
But in aforementioned data, Jews are +1.16 SD in WQ -> only 0.22/1.16 ~= 19% of Jewish excess wealth (compared to the white mean) can be explained by their higher (verbal-crystallized) IQ.
For Episocalians/Anglicans, it’s (0.47×0.54)/0.44 ~= 58%
For Methodists, it’s (0.47×0.17)/0.16 ~= 50%
One point to keep in mind is that a 0.47 correlation between IQ and wealth means that (at most [1]) 0.47² ~= 22% of the variance in wealth is explainable by IQ . In other words, while IQ is one of the major factors explaining wealth differences, it’s nevertheless only a medium-sized part of the pie. Data I’ve seen on networking shows networking to be at least on par with IQ in importance (“your network is your net worth”).
[1] that’s because there could be other factors correlated with IQ that increase wealth without IQ being the causal factor
You apply for a job and the HR rep states that you are more than qualified, but prevailing DEI policies dictate that there are too many white people in the company so you cannot have that job. You tell them, “I do not believe in judging people by the color of their skin.” The instantly enlightened HR rep responds, “Golly! We’ll make an exception and give you that job, mister individualist.”
You show up for work and the first day the company sends you to a diversity training session in which the DEI commissar declares that all white people are privileged oppressors. You raise your hand and say, “I do not believe in judging people collectively.” The instantly enlightened commissar responds, “Wow! You are right, we of the DEI office are going to cease this indoctrination and walk out of our $100K jobs, mister individualist.”
Duly satisfied, you go home and in the mailbox is your tax bill with a surcharge to pay for reparations for slavery. You contact the government tax office and inform them, “you can’t punish people for crimes they didn’t commit.” Next day you get a registered letter back from the tax office stating, “We are enlightened! We are going to rescind your tax surcharge, mister individualist.”
That evening a Woke mob marches in the street with the stated goal of tearing down the statue of a great American whom they claim to be a symbol of white supremacy. You stand in front of them and declare, “mob violence is a violation of our justice system and Christian ethics.” The mob’s collective eyes open wide and their collective voice pronounces, “Ghee whiz we get it! We shall all go home in peace, mister individualist.”
Well, you can see where this is going…
The individualism business is only going to work if everyone in a society plays it by the same rules. But since only white people actually play by those rules, every other group gains the tactical high ground.
Check of proof: the rugged individualist school has failed to dismantle affirmative action, ESG, workplace-schoolroom indoctrination, ad nauseam, nor has it stopped the assorted grievance groups from acting collectively and often with violence. It has only been more recently with the Trump administration (which appears to have been somewhat influenced by the Dissident Right) that some actions have been taken on these fronts such as proclaiming an end to DEI. Of course, that will only last until the next electoral upset.
The one true way to get around this dilemma is for white people to organize. And this means forming public advocacy groups the equivalent of the NAACP et alia, as well as pushing activist groups in the streets, white resources departments on campuses, lawfare in the courts, and takeovers of the HR departments.
Something to think about in the continuing collectivist chaos…
Great comment, worthy of being promoted to article status: “Tucker Carlson’s One Simple Trick for Defeating Woke Identity Politics.”
Individualism only works if we realize that it is a feature of the white, European collective, is defended as a form of identity politics, and is protected by excluding other groups from our space.
But you are no long an individualist when you realize that you are in a tribal battle to preserve your way of life.
I recall your essay “Refutation of Libertarianism” which discussed that. I first caught that one on YouTube when it was still there. Good work with that!
Another banger! I love the “message from Yahweh” bit.
I think it’s hard for people to break the conditioning about having to look at the individual. You can pretty much hear the hand rubbing as conservative Republians pooh pooh identity politics, “I don’t see race! I look at the individual!” The comment section on the latest Vivek and Fuentes spat on Foxnews is not comforting. These “colorblind” conservatives they may not see race, but race sees them. I think I got that line from Kevin DeAnna. This paradigm can only work if everyone else doesn’t see race but they do. It’s the cynical John Stewart broadcasting “the problem with white people” screen as he cries out he’s just some jokester and that looking at Jews as a group with group interests is a timeless anti-Semitic trope. These same Jews cry “anti-Semitism!” with the quotas that were at Harvard back in the day but revel that whites denied employment for non-whites in the name of diversity.
As a personal anecdote, at work today, we talked about the shooting at Bondi Beach and how even though the perpetrators were Arab Muslim, one of the people who disarmed one of the shooters briefly as also an Arab Muslim. I was biting my tongue hard so as to not say, “what are either of them doing there?” Of course, there would be the counter-argument of “what are white people doing in Australia” I think the counter-counter argument to that is to play “tactical nihilism” card. I would be happy to hear how to counter criticism of white colonialism of other lands with respect to mass migration somehow being okay because white people colonized other countries.
In any case, I think we are beginning to see this paradigm unravel on the right. The thing is, the damage has been done.
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
Today’s pro-White activists should be made aware that the Tuck, while still in his 20’s (1996), wrote an article in the American Standard magazine (still archived at the Washington Examiner site) that exposed the SPLC’s “Hate Watch” scam: “With Friends Like Dees…”
I had high hopes for Tucker those nearly 30 years ago, but, looking back, he couldn’t follow through. Look at him now. Too late, Tuck! You had your chance. In 2018 I wrote the following on the whitebicentrism.com forum (page 5) under the “SPLC is Hate Group” topic.
Fox News is safe with Tucker. He’s no dreaded White loyalist. He will lose his bully pulpit with conservative TV fans should he, all of a sudden, come all the way over to be a proud and loyal man of his unique White race.
Tucker is a proud, and very safe libertarian, however. Safe, that is, as long as his bosses, the Murdochs, make him toe the line, while giving millions in extortion to the ADL and the SPLC for their stated aim to destroy any and all pro-White groups like the National Alliance. Their doing that “proves” Fox News is not “racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulfletch … ef48413cd4
Does the Tuck still sign off his show each night as “the sworn enemy of group think,” like a good anti-racist libertarian? Think about that. Being loyal to one’s race — an identifiable group — is being a natural group-thinker, and that is good; that’s normal. Just ask one of Tucker’s ultra Zionist bosses if he is loyal to his group, his race.
One good thing about Tucker, bless his boyish heart, is that he’s been practically the lone voice in MSM to even half-way criticize the SPLC “hate” racket for more than 22 years: https://www.weeklystandard.com/tucker-c … -like-dees
Greg Johnson: December 25, 2025 Tucker is on a journey, just like Elon is. It leads to white [sic] identity politics in the end.
—
Times a-wasting. Their journeys call for great leaps for mankind, not the baby steps they’ve been taking.
Tucker’s racial instincts are essentially intact, at least, if you’ve ever seen a photo of his beautiful White family. Elon knows better, but is a race-mixing ally cat with more than a dozen offspring by several females of various races.
With his riches, Elon can self-correct and change the course of human history in a week by cutting loose his non-White dependents and throwing his $upport behind the National Alliance or even Counter-Currents. He is a member of the biological subspecies, aka the White race, and should begin being a responsible leader of his race. Other Whites of means will follow.
Greg Johnson: January 4, 2026 at 5:08 pm Wow, Will, this is wonderfully generous. Thank you. I think you add a lot to the comments here, and yes, Pierce and the National Alliance are voices worth engaging.
—
You’re welcome. The fact is, many nominal White loyalists eventually will be sufficiently radicalized to embrace what Pierce preached. However, his followers will not be joining with those in the “big tent.”
… Perhaps tomorrow I’ll find time to transcribe what [Dr. Dalton] wrote about “Right-winger” Tucker Carlson (in 2023) while he was still a prime-time star at Fox News every night. It’s worth sharing since Tucker has been discussed lately at C-C. (See: https://counter-currents.com/2025/12/tucker-carlsons-colorblind-christianity/)
…America needs to be replaced with something else — something new, something different, something that will protect and defend the social well-being of the American majority and the ecological basis. Sadly, very few of the “insurrectionists” seem to have any conception of the Judeocracy that rules over them and which dictates much of what Trump does and says; this strongly suggests that they severely misread the real basis of American power politics. Most of those people , I would suggest, are members of the “fake Right” — a manipulated and distorted ideology that serves the purposes of the ruling Jewish elite.
The True Problems of “the Left” (pages 392-395)
Returning to the main theme, the fake Left is a heavily Jewish enterprise. But most people, Left and Right, don’t know this or don’t acknowledge it, and they therefore don’t object to that fact. When those on the Right object to the Left, it is usually to more concrete (but secondary) issues. We can make a short list: leftists are for “big government”; they support “open borders”; they want to take our guns; they stifle our freedom of speech (or freedom generally); they are authoritarian; they conduct “cancel culture”; they demonize Whites; they are anti-Christian; they tyrannize the public, as via their over-hyped Covid panic; they “tax and spend.” Maybe even “they hate America” (if we listen to Tucker Carlson). Doubtless we could add more, but I think this covers the main concerns for most on the Right.
I cannot argue with these points; I think all of them are basically true. But there are deeper factors at work that help to explain this collective phenomenon, which is why we need to press a bit harder to really understand the process at work here.
When I consider the many objectionable features of what is called the Left, I compile a different sort of list. For what it’s worth, I find it to have the following negative qualities:
A desire to impose their beliefs on others. This is the ” “authoritarian,” controlling,” and “liberty-loathing” aspect. Leftist liberals seem to have an inordinate need to compel others to follow their belief-system. They are the antithesis of “live and let live.” They have little or no tolerance for dissenting views, especially those that threaten their own positions. They know that rational dissent will severely undermine their credibility, so they suppress it. 7
They are blind to the realities of race, biology, and genetics. For the Left, most of human nature is a “social construction” — something pliable and malleable, something that can be defined and redefined almost at will. Humans are merely a plastic biology; the many races are rather like different colors of Playdough, all equally moldable into new shapes and forms. This results in an over-inclusive and naive egalitarianism.
But this is not reality. The fact is that there are profound and unalterable differences between human beings, both between and within races. These are manifest in physical, mental, emotional, psychological, and cultural ways. They are rooted in genetics, and cannot be washed away. But leftists have deeply imbibed the fallacy of human equality.Many are also functional relativists who cannot bear to make value distinctions. (I should note here the difference between the leftist elite, who espouse views that they don’t really believe, and the naive leftist masses who generally do seem to believe them.) As a result, leftists say incredibly stupid things and make incredibly stupid policy proposals.
No concept of noble humanity. When one swallows the myth of human equality, one condemns the human race to a miserable mediocracy. If all are equal, then none are better, and in fact no one can be better. Equality denies the existence of superior individuals, who are the very ones who drive society forward. When such superior individuals do appear — as they inevitably do — they are suppressed, censored, attacked, perhaps jailed, perhaps killed. Superior individuals put the lie to the myth of equality, which is one reason why they are so dangerous to the Left. Because leftists have repudiated the whole concept of noble humanity, they represent a profound threat to human well-being. They effectively destroy the future of our race.
A pathology of pity. Leftists are pity-mongers in the extreme. They wallow in pity. They praise pity. And they sell pity. 8 Great individuals and great societies do not wallow in pity. They accept pain, hardship, and loss, and then they move on. They give a fair respect to all of humanity, but they don’t elevate the lesser or the weak. They don’t allow the lesser to dominate or even to consume inordinate time or resources. The lesser of one’s own race are cared for quietly, and the lesser of other races are excluded. Such an approach can seem harsh, but such is life.
Dangerous and possibly fatal naivete. By accepting false but comforting myths, by failing to address the real threats to society, by adopting a de facto philo-Semitism, and by wallowing in an over-socialized and misdirected form of pity, leftists dodge the hard reality of the modern world. In doing so, they doom society to inevitable suffering and decay. Life is hard, evolution can be brutal, and choices are painful. Leftists, though, prefer the easy way out; they seek to avoid all conflict and confrontation, and are happy to surrender control of their lives to, for example, a Jewish elite who would like nothing more than to use them, exploit them, and utterly crush them in the end.
Only by addressing these deeper failings of the Left can we get to the root of the problem.
Where Is the Opposition?
As I mentioned above, all sectors of the Right oppose leftism, but most are half-hearted — or worse. Let me make a specific example. Perhaps the most visible and vocal critic of the Left is Tucker Carlson of Fox News. In Chapter 26 of the present volume, I have critiqued his modus operandi, but here I want to emphasize his deeper alignment with the Left.
We can compare Carlson’s worldview to that of the typical leftist:
(A) The leftist, being a naive egalitarian, is anti-racist. He believes deeply in human equality. He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.” He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity. Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices. The leftist never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities. In this way, the leftist maintains his status and material well-being.
(B) Carlson, being a naive egalitarian, is an anti-racist. He believes deeply in human equality. He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.” He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity. Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices. Carlson never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia and never calls to restrict their activities. In this way, Carlson maintains his status and material well-being.
I trust that we can see the similarities here… 9
To be continued…
Footnotes:
7 Again, the Left has no monopoly on this issue. The Right can be just as imposing.
8 One need only watch any episode of popular television shows, especially so-called reality TV. Show like “Ameican Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars” or “America’s Got Talent” are endless parades of sob stories. Crying contestants are de rigueur. [I remember the pathetic “Queen For a Day” TV show from the 1950s, predecessor to modern “reality” shows. Check it out: https://www.history.com/articles/this-midcentury-show-turned-unhappy-housewives-into-tv-royalty
9 There are, of course, differences: Carlson is anti-immigration, pro-Christian, Covid-skeptical, and withering in his critique of the Biden regime. But the similarities are more significant and more consequential than the differences.
———-
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.