Posted: Jan 05, 2021 9:51 pm
by Mike_L

So it's guilt by association then?
White supremacists (or, more specifically, what the leftist media define as "white supremacists") agree with some of the things Carlson says, therefore Carlson is a White supremacist!
And what is a "white supremacist" anyway? A white person who doesn't embrace some sort of collective White guilt or self-loathing?

Taking a closer look at the last one (Nathan Robinson's piece in The Guardian)...
Carlson may not even notice what he is doing, or realize that he has a “white nationalist” viewpoint. That’s, in part, because he accepts the definition of racism as “racial hatred”. Instead, we should define it as valuing people of different races differently, and accepting a racial hierarchy of wealth and power as natural.

Oh we should, should we? Why? Because Nathan Robinson says so?
Like Merriam-Webster, I suppose we should just update our definitions upon demand -- specifically the demand of the woke few... or the one.

Going back to Nathan Robinson's Guardian piece...

Here, for example, is a passage from Carlson’s most recent book, on the topic of why “diversity” makes us weaker:

When confronted or pressed for details, [proponents of diversity] retreat into a familiar platitude, which they repeat like a zen koan: diversity is our strength. But is diversity our strength? The less we have in common, the stronger we are? Is that true of families? Is it true in neighborhoods or businesses? Of course not. Then why is it true of America? Nobody knows. Nobody’s even allowed to ask the question.

What if the observation that diversity is not a strength just happens to be true? Is it still racist for Whites (and only Whites, of course) to say it? What if a meta-analysis of 87 studies showed that diversity tended to erode (rather than strengthen) social trust? This Danish one from September 2019, for instance...

The title of the video is sensationalist and wrong. The remarks about Iraqis are derogatory, but not based on race.
Regarding the Obama comments, he merely asks why a mixed race person should be defined by just one of those races. He doesn't disparage 'blackness' in any way.

As for the remaining three videos...
Again, it's a case of: "they jibe on these points, therefore he's one of them"... this after casting 'them' in a negative light that is reserved exclusively for 'whites'.