Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
There is a reason, of course, that “everyone” wants to make a racial issue out of this. Because it is a putrescent pile of racist myths and cliches. Nearly every phrase of Carlson’s statement is the euphemistic expression of white-supremacist replacement doctrine. “The Democratic Party” means liberals, which translates into Jews. They are importing “new people” from the “Third World” means people with black and brown skin. Those kinds of people, in the racist trope, are “obedient,” meaning docile, backward and stupid. Their votes do not constitute real democracy because they are replacing the “current electorate” — which is presumably whiter and less docile. These paler, truer Americans are thus deprived of their birthright of political dominance. And fighting back — making sure the new Third World people have less power — becomes a defense of the American way.
This is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like. Carlson is providing his audience with sophisticated rationales for their worst, most prejudicial instincts. And the brilliance of Carlson’s business model is to reinterpret moral criticism of his bigotry as an attack by elites on his viewers. Public outrage is thus recycled into fuel for MAGA victimhood. And so the Fox News machine runs on and on.
|
So, since you can't refute the actual things Tucker says in the video, you resort to the standard accusation of racism and white supremacy. You concoct an intellectual sounding "putrescent pile" of elitist Progressive racialist demonizations to replace the actual content of the video with the mythical narrative that insisting immigration must be controlled, rational, and legal is actually some sort of racist dog whistling.
What Tucker spoke about was political power. Political party power. It is the kind of thing that could go the other way. If the mass migration from south of the border was an importation of millions who would mostly vote Republican, I don't believe the Dems would be so welcoming. And the Repubs might well be.
I believe the "replacement" (which Carlson shows that the Dems admit it is about) is not merely creating a many generation hold of Democrat control, but ultimately is the replacement of our constitutional system of government with a centralized Progessive system of unlimited government power. A switch from limited central government power to an unlimited central power. And, in terms of total power over "the people," it won't matter the name of the party at that point.