1,641 words 

Tucker Carlson Interviews Nick Fuentes

The biggest news in Nationalism This Week is that Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes. Everyone knows that I think that Fuentes is a slimy, unprincipled opportunist who is bad for white identity politics because (1) he isn’t white, and (2) his only (apparent) absolute is Catholicism.

Fuentes is a Mexican Catholic reactionary, not a white advocate. And, as I pointed out more than a decade ago, reactionary Catholicism is not a vehicle for white identity politics. The best it can do is Latin masses for the brown people who are replacing us. This is borne out by Fuentes’ increasingly brown audience.

That said, the Fuentes interview is largely good for white identity politics, despite the fact that Fuentes cucked on every important identitarian issue, as David Zsutty has already pointed out. Seriously, when Tucker said things like “God created only individuals, not groups,” that was an engraved invitation to defend basic race realism, and Fuentes decided to play it safe. Now that Charlie Kirk is dead, he is running toward the mainstream thinking he can pick up Kirk’s audience.

There are at least three reasons why this interview is good for white identity politics.

First, it is a huge Overton window shift. If Tucker can platform Nick Fuentes, what’s to stop him from platforming me or Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald? At this point, nothing.

Second, although Fuentes is bad on race and identity, he’s very good on the Jewish question, which is now being widely discussed because his appearance has triggered a public meltdown by Jewish advocates and apologists.

As an aside, I think that Tucker’s decision to platform Fuentes is a master stroke. Fuentes has been getting a “strange new respect” from the mainstream, including the New York Times. The Times wanted to promote him because he is anti-Trump and anti-Vance. But his new respectability began with his attacks on Tucker Carlson as a “fed.” Tucker is the number one enemy of Right-wing Jews like Laura Loomer and Mark Levin because of his critical attitude toward Israel and Zionist power in American politics. Thus the most plausible explanation for mainstreaming Fuentes is to harm Tucker.

By platforming Fuentes, however, Tucker has co-opted Fuentes, who has now dropped the “fed” accusation and is pretending to be pro-Trump. More importantly, by interviewing Fuentes, Tucker has thrust the question of Jewish control of American politics center-stage, and now it has more credibility because Jews and their allies spent their own capital mainstreaming Fuentes. That was clever of them but not too smart.

Third, by platforming Fuentes, Tucker now has the whole establishment bent on attacking and discrediting Fuentes. There’s a mountain of dirt for them to work with, ably assembled by such researchers as Chris Brunet. If Tucker wanted to discredit Fuentes on his own, he would not have had a fraction of the help or reach as the army of critics he has now conjured up.

This creates another Overton window shift, making it more likely for Fuentes’ critics on the Right like Chris Brunet and Jaden McNeil to be platformed. Frankly, discrediting an interloper like Fuentes can only be good for white identity politics, and plenty of people on the real Right have all the necessary receipts.

This may be as close to the sun as Nick ever flies.

Well played, Tucker. Well played. I hope you are kicking back, smoking a stogie, and beaming with satisfaction. 

Continues at Counter-Currents.