In 2019 I penned a column titled “Can the Right Fight Without Saying White?” The gist was, you can’t fight antiwhite racism without calling it what it is. Several weeks ago Tucker Carlson, who used to tap-dance around the topic of antiwhite hatred, preferring to more obliquely condemn bias against people “based on the way they look,” made up for lost time with a monologue in which he said “white” a whole bunch of times. “We haven’t said that often enough or clearly enough,” spoke Tuck, as if to offer an apology of sorts. “What we’re seeing is antiwhite racism.”
And of course leftist Twitter exploded in fury, as leftist Twitter always does. …
But is belling the cat by saying that the left is spreading antiwhite racism enough?
Does it actually change anything?
And here, we need to acknowledge the 1,488-pound gorilla in the room: Folks on social media, left and right, love talking about race. Race sells. …
Laugh as you will at “legacy media,” but The New York Times has more eyes on it now than ever before. Even at its height of print subscriptions during its heyday, it didn’t have as many readers as it does now digitally. And when the Times runs a piece about how guitars are racist or diapers are racist or the fucking air we breathe is racist, your shares help set its ad rates.
They’re trolling you. They welcome your outrage. …
Rinos versus anti-leftists:
This leads to another reason why “saying white” is of limited value. On one side you’ve got conservatives with something to lose (like massive Twitter followings or Fox gigs or teat-suckling Daily Wire jobs), and on the other side you’ve got the “outsider” Nick Fuentes types who love scorching the earth with their naughty impishness. Those in that latter group can always be counted on to say white “improperly” or indelicately. This will invariably cause the people in the former group to melodramatically “denounce” the wrongspeak, lest they risk cancellation themselves.
And once again, no actual progress will be made as the right-on-right bickering between based and cucked distracts all parties from countering the left. …
That’s the pitfall of “saying white.” Most conservatives with an actual audience have little stomach for it, and those on the fringe who have a large stomach for it are either illiterate imbeciles or trolls who just like Jokering shit up (if one thing’s true of the “groyper” generation, it’s that it’s produced no new Jared Taylors or Peter Brimelows — genuine intellectuals who can handle these issues adroitly).
Even Tuck, for all the “white” he crammed into that recent monologue, still felt the need to frame the issue as “we all bleed red, white, and blue,” similar to his take a few weeks ago on mass shooter Justin Tyran Roberts (a black who targeted whites): “This may be the last time you hear his name on television. On one level, that’s fine with us. Picking at America’s [racial] wound is unwise. We’ve always thought that. We think it more now than ever. A multiracial country can only survive if it self-consciously deemphasizes race.”
Tucker might be willing to say “white,” but he ain’t never gonna say “black,” and an argument can be made that saying “black” has become more important than saying “white,” because the most destructive elements in the black community — malignant elements unique to the black community in terms of percentage of population — target not just whites but Asians, Hispanics, Pakistani UberEats drivers, and pretty much everyone else. And let’s be frank — most of the antiwhite rhetoric (CRT, “white privilege” propaganda, 1619 brainwashing) comes from blacks, or from Jews and whites who promote it in the name of blacks.
But while you might persuade a few Tucker types to say “white,” nobody, and I mean nobody with any reach is gonna say “black” in anything other than glowing terms. After all, the GOP has to prioritize winning that black vote! …
The law is on the side of color-blindness, so use it!
An example: Amazon Studios’ new “hiring inclusion policy” for actors mandates — mandates — that each production must hire “30% white men, 30% white women and non-binary people, 20% men from underrepresented races and ethnicities, 20% women and non-binary people from underrepresented races and ethnicities.” Yet near the bottom of that policy is a disclaimer: “In all hiring, a particular employment decision may not be made on the basis of an individual’s race, age, color, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristic.”
“Base your casting decisions on race. Oh, but remember, you can’t base your casting decisions on race. But do it.”
They know what they’re mandating is illegal. Like all of the incipient apartheid policies in government and the private sector, this can be fought in court.
Trump left us a potentially sympathetic SCOTUS. Why waste his one decent legacy? …
Social media obsession has blinded many rightists to the fact that Section 230 immunity (Twitter totally can ban someone just for being white) does not exist in the brick-and-mortar world. That’s why that obsession benefits the apartheid advocates; they want you to get so used to Section 230 immunity that you forget that it doesn’t apply to your kid’s school or your workplace.
Blacks are sacred cows at the moment, partly because the left cancels anyone who criticizes them, and partly because for decades America has been willing blacks to catch up in a colorblind society. The left has of course smashed that last hope — corrective racism, aka anti-white racism, is their thing now.