Tucker Carlson on White Identity Politics
(Greg Johnson) 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.
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.
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, as well as a flagrant moral double standard, namely that identity politics is bad only for whites. This is why philosophy is so important to our cause. Once these false dogmas are destroyed, white identity politics will be unstoppable.
(Republished from Counter-Currents Publishing by permission of author or representative)
