Sunday, April 11, 2021

Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues. – The Occidental Observer - by Kevin MacDonald

(The purpose has been all along - you are to be REPLACED  - Whitey! - CL) 

You can also read:-



The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.

Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.

“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.

This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?

Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”:

Not clear how replacement theory is “anti-Semitic,” but I suppose that Greenblatt considers anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt’s tweet, The Hill noted that “the ADL head explained that the “Great Replacement” theory “is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,” linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a “racist lie.” But how much of a “racist lie” is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60 percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?

Greenblatt also emailed Fox News, writing “Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.” This assertion that Carlson is making a “full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement theory” is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places these days—witness Biden’s lie about the new Georgia voting laws as “Jim Crow on steroids.” A full-on embrace of “white supremacist replacement theory” would at least reference a specific concern for White people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology (“every time they import a new voter…”). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say it. I am pretty sure he believes it.

Officially, Carlson’s heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate, particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious—at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it’s fine for non-Whites to hate Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White minority.

And it’s not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to replace Whites as part of the American elite.

Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn’t make much sense to say that America’s non-White voters are being replaced when they are being “replaced” by more non-White voters, although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. But in any case, they ain’t White, and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants—as noted in my comments on the January 6 “insurrection,” The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony.”  Their strategy also includes packing the Supreme Court, in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a super-majority of liberals.

Biden’s immigration plan calls for an increase in “diversity” visas to 80,000 from 55,000 and has an emphasis on family unification—a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (here, p. 283) and beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.

Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!

Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson’s mild comments to the manifesto of the Christchurch and El Paso murderers.

I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot’s Twitter feed. Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And now, because of obsessive Trump hate, now is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at The Washington Post. Boot wrote that Carlson “the top-rated host on Fox “News” Channel, has been attracting attention for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he’s reached a new low.”

As the left-leaning Media Matters for America has chronicled, Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” and said that Afghanistan is “never going to be a civilized country because the people aren’t civilized.” He has complained that an influx of poor immigrants “makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided.” He has repeatedly described immigration as an “invasion,” and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a “hoax” and “a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power.”

And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his manifesto: “Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum …. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?”

On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New Zealand shooter’s manifesto was literally headlined “The Great Replacement,” and the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

The Long History of Jewish Efforts to Replace the White population of America

The lack of concern on the part of Boot and Greenblatt for White Americans is entirely typical of the organized Jewish community. The following is based on Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique along with some more recent research—the point being that the organized Jewish community has long had the aim of diluting the White population of the U.S., motivated by fear and loathing of the White population. The culture of critique is the erection of an adversarial culture that his hostile to the traditional White population of the U.S.

Jewish activists on immigration rejected the ethnic status quo put in place by the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws. Otis Graham (2004: 80) notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration was not only the most effective force in enacting the 1965 law, their activism “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community Jews thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Stuar Svonkin ( 1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). Similarly, Elliott Abrams (1999, 190) noted, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

In 1952 President Truman’s President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo, and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system, because there were already high levels of nonquota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas. Rather, the report noted that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was the total number of immigrants.

The [PCIN] thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total number of immigrants (PCIN 1953, 42). As Bennett (1963, 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants “was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.” Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator Pat McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system “would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation” (in Bennett 1963, 185)—a result that has indeed come to pass. (The Culture of Critique, 1998/2002: 281)

The chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman, and the staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director); its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJCongress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952: 3). The proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome (PCIN, 1953) with the cooperation of Rep. Emanuel Celler and with an essay by Oscar Handlin, the Jewish academic activist (see below).

The American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”[i] During this period the Congress Weekly, the newsletter of the AJCongress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the “myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks” (Oct. 17, 1955: 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of “need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin” (May 4, 1953: 3). Dr. Israel Goldstein (1952a, 6), president of the AJCongress, wrote that “The national origins formula “is outrageous now . . . when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples” (Goldstein 1952b, 5), thus presaging the current mantra promulgated by American media and politicians that “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

Prominent Jewish intellectuals, such as Harvard historian and public intellectual Oscar Handlin, published pro-immigration books (e.g., The Uprooted [1951/1973]) and articles. Handlin’s (1952) article, “The immigration fight has only begun,” was published in in Commentary (published by the American Jewish Committee) shortly after the Democrat-controlled Congress overrode President Truman’s veto of the restrictionist 1952 law. In a telling comment indicating Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces, Handlin complained about the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” in joining the immigration battle. He repeatedly uses the term “we”—as in “if we cannot beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons” (p. 4)—suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged “chipping away” of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years mentioned by Graham (2003) as part of the context of the 1965 law and noted by Cofnas.

Handlin clearly rejected an ethnic status quo, arguing that it was “illusory [to expect] that the composition of American population will remain as it is” (Handlin, 1947, 6). And he never addressed the stated justification used by restrictionists in the 1924 debates, describing their attitudes as follows: “The hordes of inferior breeds, even then freely pouring into the country in complete disregard for the precepts of the new racial learning, would mix promiscuously with the Anglo-Saxon and inevitably produce a deterioration of the species” (1951/1973: 257).  Handlin thus ignored the actual argument used by restrictionists during the Congressional debates of 1924—that the national origins formula was fair to all ethnic groups in the country because it created an ethnic status quo (MacDonald, 1998/202: 263) with its implicit and entirely defensible assumption from an evolutionary perspective that different ethnic groups have conflicts of interest on immigration (e.g., conflicts between Palestinians and Jews in Israel over a Palestinian right of return).

Handlin was a critical figure in the decades leading up to the passage of the 1965 law:

Handlin’s thinking on immigration policy both reflected and shaped the course of reform in the postwar period. He may be credited with popularizing a new interpretation of American history—one that conceptualized immigration at the heart of American economic and democratic development. In creating this framework for immediate political reform, he founded a normative theory of immigration history—one we popularly known as “a nation of immigrants” (Ngai, 2013, 62).

[i]. Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816, March 6–April 9, 1951, 410.

Abrams, E. (1999). Faith or fear: How Jews can survive in a Christian America.

Graham, O. (2004). Unguarded gates: A history of American’s immigration crisis. Rowman & Littlefield.

Handlin, O. (1947). Democracy and America’s future. Commentary 3: 1–6.

Handlin, O. (1951/1973). The uprooted, 2nd ed. Little Brown and Co.

Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary 14(July), 1–7.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Ngai, M.M. (2013). Oscar Handlin and immigration policy reform in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32(3), 62–67.

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953). Whom we shall welcome. De Capo Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against prejudice: American Jews and the fight for civil liberties. Columbia University Press.