Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dismantle Tucker Carlson’s "white replacement" conspiracy, exposing his reliance on outdated census data (e.g., 1950 trends) and distorted claims like Pelosi’s grandson anecdote to push racist narratives. Carlson frames ICE protests as attacks on white Christians, ignoring Minneapolis’ 60% white population and Rigney’s ties to Idaho’s theocratic regime. Their analysis reveals his rhetoric mirrors fringe extremism—like Pat Robertson’s demonization of LGBTQ+ people—while masking authoritarian desires under pseudo-historical and religious justifications, ultimately proving his arguments are both illogical and dangerous. [Automatically generated summary]
needed that momentum and the second month just yeah away but sooner or later haribo was gonna come and he was gonna haribo was gonna end this this bit This bit was going to run into a Haribo wall.
Between the state of the world and the losses we're continuing to face, this is hands down the worst year of our lives, but I know we're going to make it through this year because we're together.
The single biggest political issue divide in the United States right now is ICE.
Minneapolis is a disaster tonight.
There is widespread violence, mob violence.
There is political turmoil, chaos.
Really, we're going to be going live there in a moment.
Nick Shorter, who's been covering all this and shot some amazing video, will speak to one of the pastors of the church that was invaded by lunatics, by anti-ICE activists.
It really is the mobilizing force on the left, and it's the focus of much of the right.
One of the first things you can see from that clip is the fact that Tucker is using Nick Sortor as his man on the scene, just like Alex.
Nick is the right-wing media's chosen guy who's willing to go to protests to get footage for them to be scandalized by.
His role was mostly played by Andy No in the 2016 cycle, and the two of them have almost identical scams.
They find places where tensions are high and there's a strong protest movement building.
They identify the side that's being protested against and subtly or not so subtly show allegiance to that side.
Andy would pall around with the Patriot Prayer guys and the Proud Boys in Portland, and Nick has been very clear that he's friends with and dining with ICE agents.
They proceed to post manipulative and biased footage that plays into the narrative being pushed by the side they're friends with, while all the while they pretend that they're attending these protests in the capacity of being an unbiased journalist.
Local activists often are pretty able to see through this game, and they treat folks like Andy and Nick with great disdain, which they then use to portray themselves as targeted victims out there against this evil mob.
Nick is kind of living it up now, but he should be very aware of how expendable he is.
The best thing that could ever happen for the folks he supplies content for, like Alex or Tucker, is for him to die.
If he just gets beat up, they can make some great content out of that, but he's not worth more to them healthy and happy than he is dead or paralyzed or something.
So to me, this is a little bit messy, and initially, I didn't know what I thought about it.
I absolutely don't think that the protesters did anything wrong, and they obviously weren't trying to invade a church.
But I can also see how a church would be pissed off about one of their pastors' out-of-church political activities becoming a disruption for the church itself.
The reason that I think that this is probably a reasonable stance is that for years, churches have been expected to remain apolitical as part of maintaining their tax-exempt status.
If that demand is made of churches, then it kind of makes sense that if this pastor deserves to be protested, the congregation doesn't need to be brought into it.
I can see that argument.
Sure.
I think the protester's point is completely correct.
And I imagine that they were hoping to drive home the message that working for ICE is incompatible with Christian values, but I don't know if it works tactically and maybe even from like a concept standpoint.
Sure.
I'm not sure, especially when I first heard this news, I was like, it feels dicey.
I think there's a lot of people who are eager to point out, like, you know, for someone like coming from where I'm coming from, where I'm like, I don't know if you want to go invade a church or protest at a church.
People will point out that ICE has no problem with detaining someone in a church.
And that's true.
I can't argue that point, but I think that forming moral justifications based on what a bunch of monsters would do is probably not going to solve anything.
And it's not worth it.
Anyway, just off the bat, I empathize with the idea of these churchgoers, like the possibility that they could feel like this protest was an inappropriate invasion of their space.
But I wholeheartedly denounce the way that a person like Tucker is going to spin this like it's an attack on Christendom and what have you.
Yeah, I mean, in essence, that is the battle being held right there, right?
Is in a world, Christianity can also have an ice sky.
And in another world, Christianity is entirely against that period.
So in a way, it is an attack on Christendom if your belief in Christendom is completely antithetical to anything anyone would ever consider close to the Christ life story.
On the surface, it's about, of course, who has authority over the borders.
Does federal authority mean anything?
It's about law enforcement.
To what extent can you pursue criminals in your own country?
It's, of course, about immigration.
ICE standing for immigration and customs enforcement, of course.
But big picture, it's about something much bigger.
And that's why it's become such a passionate divide.
The battle over ICE is really a battle over demographic change in the United States.
Who gets to live here?
Which is always and everywhere the fundamental question in any country.
Who lives there?
Who are these people?
What are they like?
And in our country, that question has basically not been addressed out loud for the past 60 years, even as the population of the United States has changed dramatically.
And that's one of the reasons the battle over ICE and its jurisdiction and what to do with all the people living in the United States illegally has become so passionate and so fraught because no one is saying out loud what exactly this is about.
And so as a first step to making things better, it would help to see things clearly.
Conversely, the folks like Tucker are super anxious about the percentage of white people there are around, and their political interest in ICE's actions is not about them caring about rule of law or jurisdictions.
It's based on their desire to carry out an ethnic cleansing in America.
They know what they want is evil, and they know that if they would just come out and say it, they would deserve whatever horrible things the public would do to them.
Because they have to hide, they need to insist that the other side is actively trying to carry out a white genocide.
If that's true, then their genocidal inclinations are totally understandable and really just defensive survival stuff.
This is the part where Tucker is wrong and he's a liar.
He's mischaracterizing the side he's against in order to justify the side he supports carrying out atrocities.
It's basically exactly what he did during the Iraq war, except instead of targeting Muslims in another country, it's U.S. residents.
Almost exactly what Alex warned about for his entire career.
The part of this that Tucker is totally right about is that we've gotten to this point because people won't say out loud what it is they want, particularly his side.
They've all wanted a white ethnostate this whole time, but it's been career suicide to say that.
Folks like Richard Spencer jumped the gun on staking the position of being an unrepentant white supremacist, and because of that bad timing, he lost out on a huge career and a ton of money.
Stefan Molyneux had a huge show in 2016.
He was a libertarian darling, but he went white supremacist just a little too early to cash in.
These are just recent examples, but modern history is full of people who went a little too racist too early and they lost their careers over it.
And everyone in Tucker's position knows that.
They were raised in that world and they learned to talk on camera in that environment.
The world has changed now.
There's no real consequence for just being racist.
The political correctness wall has broken down and there's no reason to not just say what you mean with your whole chest.
The support for what ICE is doing is based on a white nationalist fantasy that people like Tucker want to make real.
And Tucker is correctly pointing out that the reason we're in this situation is because none of his friends would speak honestly in the past.
The irony is that Tucker is right that we wouldn't be here if people like him had been honest about what they want for like the past 50 years, but that's because we would have crushed him by now if he had been honest.
We would not have put up with the steps that ended up getting us here.
I mean, and the weirdest part is of all the things that has that it was weaponized, using it against us was one of the most effective weapons anyone has ever used.
Let's talk about what exactly is going on in the United States and why it's led to the battles in, say, Minneapolis.
What's happening in the United States is a wholesale change of who lives here.
Total demographic change.
Now, some have called this replacement.
And the question is: is it really replacement?
So we thought we would look it up.
If you were someone following along at home, trying to figure out, you know, what is everyone so mad about?
What is this great replacement theory?
You might go, as almost everybody does, first to Google and just type in great replacement theory, and AI would come up with the following result.
This is hot off Google AI.
Here's what it says if you look up great replacement theory on Google.
We're quoting.
The Great Replacement Theory is a debunked, meaning untrue, far-right, meaning Nazi, white nationalist, meaning racist, conspiracy claiming that white populations, particularly in Europe and the U.S., are being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants and minorities, often orchestrated by replacist elites, leading to demographic shifts and cultural erosion, fueling extremist violence and anti-immigrant sentiment.
That's one sentence, by the way, a run-on sentence, but it is AI.
Everyone already knows that he believes this shit.
So it comes off a little dishonest for him to pretend to not have deep knowledge about white replacement theories.
The reason that Tucker is taking this tone is at least partially because he knows that he's trying to sell the audience Nazi shit and he's afraid to be blunt about it.
Because if he is, then people might start throwing bricks at him.
Anyone who believes in it is deranged and is stoking violence simply by believing in it.
And it goes on to explain how this works.
The theory, quote, posits that mass migration, declining white birth rates, and political agendas by elites are intentionally replacing white populations.
It has inspired numerous acts of mass murder, violence, with perpetrators often citing this theory.
Research shows that endorsers of the great replacement theory often hold anti-social traits, authoritarian views, and negative attitudes toward minorities and immigrants.
In other words, once again, believing that the population of this or any other country is being manipulated by people in power and the people who are born here are being replaced by people who weren't, believing that is not only wrong, it's misinformation.
So I want to draw a sharp focus on the way Tucker is using language.
He says that this AI-generated explanation is saying that you can kill people by believing the great replacement theory.
He's phrasing it this way because he's lazy, he hates his audience, and because he needs to make this idea sound stupid.
Obviously, it's weird to think that you holding a belief alone could hurt someone else, but no one would argue that holding a particular belief can like not motivate you in your actions.
I would be interested to know, like, here's one of my problems, right?
So this AI thing has this whole fucking baba ba semery bullshit, right?
But it doesn't touch on the truth of American history, which is that ultimately, when it comes down to it, the great replacement theory is about keeping labor costs out.
It's about terrorizing illegal immigrants so they never can feel comfortable enough to ask for more money.
It's about forcing people into situations where you can exploit them over and over and over again because the other option is violence.
And yes, I'm sorry to break this to Tucker, but people who hold nonsensical racist beliefs also tend to have other negative traits.
It sucks for people like him, but that's kind of just how it goes.
The reason this happens is because this kind of racist shit never exists in a bubble.
No one's a perfectly well-adjusted, totally tolerant, happy-go-lucky person who also believes that a shadowy group who totally aren't the Jews is trying to replace white people.
Holding beliefs like that ends up penetrating the other areas of your life, and it will end up alienating the people around you, except the people who hold those same nonsensical beliefs.
The belief that white people are being replaced is based on a gigantic level of aggrievement, and that's something that ends up applying to everything in your life.
Every aspect of your life, there is a way that you can blame other people for the situation that you're in not being as good as it could be.
And the great replacement shit catches all of those feelings.
It will cover all your bases.
Tucker's trying to pretend that people are saying that you can't hold these beliefs, but no one's saying that.
We're just saying that the shield of political correctness is gone, and no one's going to pretend that you're not a racist if you believe explicitly racist shit.
Now AI can provide the bullshit fake answer that Tucker gets like he doesn't even have to look around the internet for some asshole to say something like this.
Now he can just query an AI and be like, oh, can you see what this asshole wrote?
He's saying that everyone would agree that the 1950s were the best time in American history, and that some of them might be wrong, and some might be right.
They might be wrong, but everyone would agree.
This show must be written by AI because it's a fucking dumb sentence coming out of his mouth.
Everyone does not agree that the 50s were the best time in America.
That's fucking dumb.
White supremacists, like, they were mad back then, too.
It's just stupid to say that there was domestic harmony in the 50s, but that's part of the racist fantasy that's trying to rewrite history.
The 50s were the last time that a white supremacist could reasonably think that their side was going to comfortably stay in power.
So it's remembered with this wistful fondness that Tucker is expressing.
They view the social developments of the 60s as an uprooting of the natural order of things because that was when people started fighting back in a meaningful and effective way.
Most of the things that you would look back on as like disharmony are things that are being foist upon vulnerable groups in the 50s, whereas in the 60s, you start to see people making headway, pushing back.
Yeah, the power of standardized history can never be, can never be underestimated because the amount of people who know what actually happened a short period before they were alive is so few.
Let's take a look at who lived in America in 1950.
And let's do that by taking a closer look at the population of the top six cities, which at the time were, and this tells you a lot right here, redlined.
So there's a couple things to consider with the census that Tucker is talking about here.
The first is that if you go consult the forms that were used to collect the data, the race options that were available to choose from were white, Negro, American, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino.
And what I'm talking about is just for people who use the P1 form, which was used by enumerators when they were able to make contact with homeowners and actually interview them.
For many people, they didn't speak to census takers and they just filled out a P2 form, which only allowed two race options of white or Negro.
What is true is that the population of the United States was a higher percentage white in 1950, going by whatever definition of white we want to use.
But Tucker's playing games a bit and census data is exactly the right statistics to use for that.
This is like just right in his sweet spot for bullshit.
Yeah, I mean, and the level of exploitative awareness is fucking ridiculous because, of course, even accounting for that, then you've got fucking the reason that those places were those places was because they kept people out.
And then whenever they couldn't keep people out anymore, because of people like Tucker, they were like, oh, black people are going to move here.
So we've accepted on Alex's world, there is no continuity, right?
But it is still instinctively ingrained within me anytime we go outside of Alex's world to be like, no, you can't say that because I was alive in the past.
A lot of African Americans moved up from the South to work at the auto plants in Detroit, to work at the harbor, at the shipyards of steel plant in Baltimore, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
But not all of it.
And in New York City, almost all the demographic change is the result of immigration.
And that began in 1965, which is definitely within living memory of a lot of people watching this right now.
So that's another and very long way of saying the great replacement is not only real, it's the realest thing there is.
So Tucker has presented census data from 1950 and more recent demographic estimates to illustrate that there was a higher percentage of white people in the six largest cities in the United States back then compared to now.
He's then explained that economic motivators like the auto industry in Detroit and the ports in Baltimore attracted black laborers to come to the city.
But then Tucker has just decided to assert that all of the shift in population in New York is because of immigration.
So now this is the case for the monologue that he's in.
And even if we accept what he's saying, how is all of what he's presented so far supposed to show that the great replacement is the realest thing in the world?
The great replacement requires intent on some shadowy group's part to replace white people with people from other places.
It can't just be the natural flow of people drawn to the place that brands itself as the land of opportunity, who has a big statue of liberty bragging about how we take in the world's needy.
There's a leap that folks like Tucker need to make, and it's one that they're not quite ready to make, which is that they need to disown and attack some of America's primary myths.
If they truly believe that there's a shadowy conspiracy meant to replace all white people, then they need to consider the Statue of Liberty as a giant part of that plot.
In order to achieve the state of affairs they want in the present, they need to tear down most of what was used to make us feel good about ourselves in the past and just lay bare that this country is a white identity colonial project.
Like they need to shut that shit down of send me your sick, you're downtrodden.
Populations change because leaders decide they should change.
Population demographics, the question of who lives within the borders of a country is not only a concern of leaders, of governments, it is the main concern.
It's the main thing they think about.
So the rest of us imagine that the government concerns itself with collecting taxes, schools, national defense.
And those are all concerns, but we are thinking way too small.
The people who run countries, who map out the future of civilizations, think in much larger terms than the rest of us.
This is not a guess, by the way.
This is true.
They think in terms of who lives here, what do they like?
How many of them are there?
And there are plenty of levers that they can move to change those numbers.
So it may be true that certain aspects of demographics are very important concerns for civic planners and politicians, but not in the way that Tucker means it.
Whether or not the population can find housing is a matter of demographics, in the sense that there's a certain stock of housing that can either meet or fail to meet the number of people in a given area.
Whether or not the schools can accommodate all the children in a particular area, that's a matter of demographic concern that matters a lot to leaders.
But the question of whether or not there's enough white people around, that's less important to people who aren't really racist.
Also, you can say that demographic change is always a choice, but not in the way that Tucker is saying.
There aren't levers that shadowy elite, shadowy elite, shadowy elites.
There aren't levers that shadowy elites can pull to cause demographic change, but there are definitely things that we can choose to do to stop it.
If we just drive out the non-white people that try to come to a town, then we've made a choice that resists demographic change.
And when Tucker is saying that the elites have chosen to make the country less white, what he essentially means is that the government hasn't done that.
They haven't imposed laws and policies to ensure that America stays 80% white.
And because they haven't, they've chosen to replace white people.
Tucker needs to stop being a coward and just come out and say that he wants segregation.
You know, I've long toyed with this idea, and it's never able to come kind of clean or to any kind of fruition.
But there is something in my head about people like Tucker and this kind of thought process that I do think has something to do with like, listen, we genocided the fuck out of the people who were here before.
That means it could happen to us.
Always be aware.
Always be aware.
Never give an inch.
Never let them have anything because we'll kill you.
Such an interesting choice for a director, considering he's never done a documentary before.
His fucking creep is directing a documentary about Melania while Trump is still in office and Tucker is just happily taking up Amazon ad money to do a commercial for it because he's a fucking clown.
Yeah, I think there would be a really interesting documentary to make about Melania insofar as like, what is the psychology of a person willing to truly make a deal with the devil of this type?
You know, like, there's no other way to describe the business relationship that is her and Donald Trump, right?
So there would be something really interesting there.
I don't think Brett Ratner was going for that, though.
Others might be longer-term adjustments to changes that no one can really control, like AI.
Oh, wait a second.
We're not going to need as many people here because machines are going to do a lot of the work.
How are we going to support these people?
That might be another reason.
And of course, there might be darker motives or more basic motives, like the innate human desire to conquer other people to replace your group with my group.
That's not a conspiracy theory.
That's the entire story of history.
Mass movements of people by force has been a constant since the Babylonian captivity and probably before, unrecorded.
That is the story of history.
And it's all around us, but we don't even notice.
The history of Ireland is that story.
Ireland, which is an island near England, was after Henry VIII Catholic.
England was Protestant.
The English took over Ireland.
It was their colony.
And in order to make it more compliant and to control the people there and to impose their culture on a foreign peoples, they moved many thousands of foreigners into Ireland.
There were the Anglo-Irish or Brits who moved to Ireland.
That was the ruling class of the country.
There were the Scots-Irish who were moved from Scotland into Ireland.
And in so doing, a Protestant region of the country was created called Ulster.
So there's a fundamental delusion that the West has been in, which is now becoming totally clear.
It's a delusion that I grew up believing.
And a lot of these folks like Tucker all used to pretend that they believed it too.
That delusion is that we learned from the past.
I grew up believing that we could look back at things like colonialism and the Crusades, and we could see horribly misguided people trying to solve problems the wrong way.
We had the gift of hindsight, and we knew that the world wasn't perfect, but creating a better future meant leaving that kind of shit behind.
When I listen to Tucker ramble about Henry VIII and stuff that happened 500 years ago, it sounds insane.
Like he's trying to argue that this is the way things have always been and always will be.
Like, and it just, I don't know what to do with it.
I mean, they're super into like, I don't know, Muslim history, whenever they have to say that, you know, white people weren't the only ones doing slaves.
So anyway, Tucker does not like, you know, Black Lives Matter or like Pride because he thinks that those are the elites trying to shove the conquering that they've done in his face.
Not only did they move all kinds of foreigners into Ireland to change the demographic mix to effect a great replacement, they began to change the national monuments.
Oh, that's weird.
Have you seen that before?
St. Patrick's Cathedral in the middle of Dublin, got to be one of the biggest Catholic shrines in Ireland.
They made it Anglican.
No longer Catholic.
It's Anglican now.
Jonathan Swift preached there, actually, an Anglo-Irishman, and so did many others.
But in the center of this Catholic country, the colonial power moved non-Indigenous people in in order to make the case this is ours now.
And you see that everywhere.
When the street across from the White House gets repainted in Black Lives Matter colors, it's kind of a species of that, right?
When the Confederate statues are torn down in Richmond and New Orleans, is it really an effort to improve the lives of local black people?
No.
Of course, it didn't work, didn't have any effect.
So the underlying assumption here that Tucker knows he doesn't even have to speak is that there are people who are being conquered by Black Lives Matter and Pride Week.
They're the indigenous population of the United States, and the shadowy group that's totally not the Jews, he didn't say that, and I can't believe I would suggest he did, are celebrating the conquer of white men by waving all this diversity around in his face.
This is dramatic loser shit, and it just sounds nuts.
Not like millions of people get together and decide, let's change the demographics of a continent, a region, let's destroy a people.
These are decisions made by leaders each and every single time.
China takes Tibet.
What's the first thing to do?
Move Han Chinese into Tibet.
Why do they do that?
Well, to subjugate, to make a point, ours is a superior culture to yours, but also to control.
Once again, this is not a conspiracy theory.
This is the story of recorded history, and it's a story of the present day.
Obviously.
And only a country completely divorced from history, from human nature, from reality itself, could ever fall for, ooh, it's a debunked far-right white nationalist conspiracy theory.
So Tucker believes that there's a plan being carried out by a shadowy group of elites who are making choices to conquer the white man and replace him with foreigners.
So either you're strongly implying go murder these people or you're a big coward trying to jangle keys away from people looking at what's very obviously a murder.
Not casting aspersions, just saying all wars are in effect that.
They're all that way.
Oh.
Every one of them.
Okay.
Including the one that we're living through that is undeclared that no one will admit is happening because it's a conspiracy theory, but it's the realest thing that ever happened.
So then we get to the question of motive.
Like, why is this happening?
Why would you do that?
Why would you want to do that to people and erase them?
Well, the most obvious motive would be power.
And that's usually the motive or one of the motives.
And in this country, it's really clear that one of the reasons this is happening is because the Democratic Party and their overlords, who are not partisan, they're just the biggest shareholders in the country in the country.
And would like to have unprotected power.
And so if you let in tens of millions of immigrants, illegal aliens, over 60 years, you're probably going to reach a point where they just openly participate in the political system where they get a vote, thereby diluting, replacing the voters who don't vote for you.
This is clearly the plan.
It's always been the plan, part of the plan.
And Stacey Abrams, who is a perennial candidate in Georgia and somehow very famous, not exactly clear why, but had one sort of unique talent.
So Stacey Abrams wasn't saying that undocumented folk were going to vote in federal elections, just that they were part of the community of people who made up the blue wave or the backlash to the 2016 election.
Everyone knows that there are just going to be some undocumented people living in the country, and they're part of our communities.
Abrams had a position that a responsible government also cares about them, whereas Tucker's side has fully embraced the idea that the government's role is to carry out an internal military action to remove them.
You can see in that clip, too, Tucker's attempt at riffing and sounding funny.
He's uncreative and angry, so all he can really muster up when he's trying to be funny is repeating right-wing talking points about politically correct terms they feel like everyone is forcing them to use.
He's in the middle of an episode defending ethnic cleansing in the United States, and he's out here whining about how some people say differently abled.
One very obvious point that lingers in the air, you don't even want to address it because it's so depressing, is how are those six cities we mentioned at the outset doing today in 2026?
The six biggest cities in the country in 1950.
Again, it was New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore.
I mean, there are nice places in some of those cities.
Some of them are just slums, actually.
And there are complicated reasons why manufacturing died.
Some of those are big manufacturing hubs, of course.
Immigration is not the only reason.
Nothing is ever the only reason.
But all of those cities were completely changed by immigration, and they all got way worse.
Much worse.
Like much, much worse.
Philadelphia, really?
Baltimore?
Detroit?
So it didn't help.
And in some places, like Los Angeles, it just destroyed the city completely and destroyed the state.
You sort of forget that the people live in California look nothing like the people who lived there in 1980 at all, when it was the least corrupt and most functional state with the people.
And one of the effects was, as noted, it gave Democrats complete control over the state.
It's a one-party state.
Period.
And you often run into Republicans from Santa Barbara or Orange County or up near Mount Shasta, from Redding, you know, and they're as conservative as anybody you've ever met in your life.
There's some real right-wingers in California, but they have no say in anything because they control nothing.
And that model will be repeated unless someone puts the brakes on immediately across the country.
So there are 14 states plus D.C. as of tonight that have no voter ID laws.
And in some places, you're not allowed to ask for voter IDs, flat out.
But in 14 states, you need no identification in order to vote.
Why is that?
Well, so illegals can vote.
It's literally that simple.
It's not more complicated than that.
So illegals can vote.
And that means you have no power if you're a native-born American, if you're an actual citizen of the country, because your vote is being canceled and in places like California, completely overwhelmed by people who aren't from here who have no right to vote, but they're voting anyway.
So this video and the argument that Tucker is making is a very clear example of him trying to manufacture consent among his audience for ICE killing anyone they want and operating in any way they please in order to achieve the goal of stopping what he feels is white replacement.
The points he's making are dumb.
The data that he's using is flagrantly misinterpreted.
And the connections between ideas he's connecting are thin at best.
This is the case because Tucker's arguing a point solely based on the need to defend the conclusion instead of building from the premises.
Simply put, this is not a person saying that undocumented immigrants are voting, therefore ICE's actions are justified.
It's a person who believes that ICE's actions are justified.
So to defend that belief, he's decided to pretend that undocumented immigrants are determining all of our elections.
It's not surprising that Tucker is playing this kind of game because this is the school of media he comes from.
He's always had his talking points given to him and the spin that he's supposed to put on a story in order to serve the powerful interests that pay him.
He was doing it when I was in college during the Iraq War, and he's doing it now.
He's just changed his branding a little bit and made a lot of this racist shit way more explicit.
Yeah, I mean, you could say that it's a gigantic worldwide competition between a small group of people who are obsessed with hoarding resources and everything that fucks the rest of us overflows directly from whatever they need to do to protect that competition from anybody else being involved.
Or, or, admittedly, it could be people who are very nice when you get to know them.
If his argument has any merit, then you would expect that the voter ID laws, you know, they're passed, then populations would flow from places with new laws into states that didn't have these laws.
Which the second motive here, which is inescapable and it's almost, it is uncomfortable to talk about, but it is the subtext behind a lot of this, is racial triumphalism, is hatred, is loathing for the people being replaced, which doesn't make intuitive sense.
Why would you be mad at people you're replacing?
Well, it's not clear.
There are obviously spiritual components here, too, which probably no mortal understands, but they're real.
They're evident.
What is this?
Why would you do that?
Why would you make, would you totally change the population of Australia, New Zealand?
Why would you totally change Canada?
Great Britain.
Every English-speaking white country is becoming non-white.
So Tucker is anything but uncomfortable saying this.
I get that he's dressing this up in his dumbass TV show host voice, and he's trying to sound so sensitive and rational, but he is legitimately saying that there's a demonic force that's trying to wipe out white people.
Also, if he's playing these games, and he probably shouldn't talk about demographic changes in places like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada being evil.
There's trouble down that road if he teases that thread a little too far.
We've come a long way from pretending to care about communism, and now we're getting to the point.
Tucker is working off two very racist presuppositions, one based on something real and one based on a fantasy.
The one that's based on something real is that Tucker believes that the white majority of the population has historically acted in ways that deserve payback.
The history of reservations, slavery, and internment are ugly things that white people in power enacted on people who had less power, and they are historically inexcusable.
The one that's based on a fantasy is that Tucker believes that all people who aren't white are unable to exist in society without compulsively needing to get that payback.
If native people got enough power, they'd put white people on reservations just out of spite.
If enough black people got into office, they'd enslave white people just to get even.
Tucker believes this of non-white people because in his mind, we're still in the days of colonialism and slavery.
It's just not been cool to say that since about 1950.
This has always been central to the extreme right-wing ideology.
They're terrified of what non-white people would do in positions of power because they know that they want to use their positions of power to oppress non-white people.
This is all very pathetic.
And I think when I was a kid, this kind of shit would be mocked off the air and some punk with a mohawk would kick the shit out of Tucker in a parking lot.
In 1965, Ian Smith and his government unilaterally declared themselves in charge of the country, which was never recognized by the international community.
The government was run fully by white people, though they made up about 5% of the population, which led to a 15-year civil war that resulted in Zimbabwe.
White people were never a majority in Rhodesia, so when Zimbabwe was founded, they weren't a former majority.
Tucker understands this, and he's giving up the game a little bit there.
Yeah, when he talks about how he's worried about the United States becoming a minority white country, what he's saying is, I don't want to relinquish all the power that I have.
You know, here's the thing that I don't get about the people who like Tucker.
Because presumably, what I understand them to be hearing, right, is Tucker saying, white people are better, right?
And the way we know we're better is because when we murdered everybody, we stopped.
And now, if we allow other people to have power, they'll murder all of us and they'll just never stop because they're all fucking chaotic monsters, right?
But at no point in time does the person listening to Tucker go, if you are painting with a broadbrush based on skin color, then you are currently doing the same thing to me as well.
I am not a person to Tucker.
I am a skin color, which means I am something to be used demographically to get what he wants.
Or even like, you know, I think Alex's show has dropped considerably in quality, but there's still like, he's still funny at all.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like, there's no value to Tucker's show outside of what I could see, which is like old people who watched him on Fox who don't want to go to the young Nazi.
His entire argument is about why it's important that we don't allow white people to become a minority in the United States, which is why it's okay that Trump and ICE are acting flagrantly unconstitutionally.
But his examples are a mess, and they aren't actually examples of changing demographics.
No, they're about apartheid.
Rhodesia and South Africa weren't majority white countries that allowed black people to come in and change the demographics to the point where they became a minority.
They were governments that came out of colonial projects that were based on all the state power being held by a minority, and that system came to an end.
They weren't white majority countries.
They were countries where white people had all the power.
If you understand what Tucker is saying correctly, this isn't about demographics at all.
It's about white nationalist power structures and how that's what he wants to maintain.
It's legitimately no different than the stuff you'd see on Nazi message boards and newsletters 20 years ago.
It's just a little more politically correct.
He can complain about political correctness until he's out of breath, but the truth is that Tucker's the one who's still trying to mask his shit with some smooth language.
When you said we got to talk about the superpowers and we have a problem with the superpowers, I thought you were talking about Hulk Hogan and Macho Maine Randy Savage.
So this is a clip from an eight-hour speech that Nancy Pelosi gave in February 2018 when she was trying to stop House Republicans who wanted to get rid of DACA.
This was two hours into the speech, which was mostly her reading accounts of people who benefited from DACA, hoping to illustrate for the GOP who their actions were meant to hurt.
It is true that Pelosi told the story about her grandson, but Tucker is playing this clip out of its full context.
She's saying this, it's not like out of nowhere.
Like she believes that there's something wrong with being white and there's something admirable about her grandson wanting to look like his friend Antonio.
That's not the point or the context.
This is a story that she tells after reading a letter from a DACA recipient who specifically talked about how stigmatized and alienated she felt in school because she had darker skin than her peers.
The point of Pelosi's story isn't that it's good that her grandson doesn't want to be white.
It's that it's heartening to think that maybe children don't have as much bigotry being imprinted on them as the last generation did.
It's nice that her grandson sees a friend with darker skin and doesn't think that's weird or bad.
It's obvious why Tucker plays this kind of game with context, but the only thing that really matters is to understand that he's doing it because he wants the opposite.
He wants a world where his white children see kids at school with darker skin and think they're different.
I, I mean, I, I, I cannot imagine because I, because, you know, I've, I've thought about it.
I've thought about what it would be like to be in a George Wallace auditorium.
You know, like to be with those people, to be with people who are what we would call centrists now, frothing at the mouth hoping to kill black people, you know?
And it is, it is like, how?
How can you possibly fucking hear this and not go, this is a, this has to stop.
Like having some kind of hindsight and hearing, just imagining what kind of shit we might have on the horizon and how this is going to look in the prism of history.
It's just, I, I, I, yeah.
And it's all the George Wallace rally is comparable.
And it's all because one organ has less melanin and another organ, uh, a flesh tube that fills with blood is more preferable than a folds of flesh that filled with blood.
So there, I mean, like, I think that at this point, I think I should probably point out that like there is a part of me that worries that this is almost becoming like gore.
If she'd been black and gotten up and said, you know, my grandson said to me, my granddaughter had a white Barbie doll and said, Grandmom, I wish I had blonde hair and blue eyes.
All of us would say, well, that's awful.
God made you like this.
It's sad to want to be something that you're not.
You should be comfortable with the way you were made.
Isn't that a kind of foundational modern American belief?
Except when you're white, it's beautiful when you hate yourself.
This game that Tucker is playing only works because of the removal of context from Pelosi's clip.
She wasn't happy about whether or not her grandchild wanted to be white.
She was happy to see a reflection of tolerance in his acceptance of his friend.
Her grandchild doesn't see traits that would have drawn racist hate in the past as being bad and can actually imagine himself having those traits without being like, oh no, what would it be?
Oh no.
Conversely, the situation he's imagining where Pelosi is black and her grandchild says that she wants to be white, that's not a scenario that reflects tolerance.
That's a desire to be different than what she is rooted in succumbing to racist pressure.
It's a person giving up their connection to who they are in order to fit in.
It's easy to understand this if you just imagine like a situation where a kid has two dads.
In one version of the story, the kid has a friend who says, I wish I had two dads, which is pretty easy to understand, is not a reflection of that friend actually wanting his dad to be gay or a desire to be gay himself.
It's a kid whose friend has two dads who sees that as normal, saying the sort of stuff that kids say.
In the second version of this story, the kid with two dads says, I wish I didn't have two dads, which is very clearly a different thing.
That's a kid reflecting a desire to be seen as normal, where he thinks that having two dads alienates him from his peers.
They treat him differently, and he wished that wasn't the case.
You kind of have to be stupid to not understand the difference between these thoughts.
And that's the act that Tucker's trying to pull off.
And what's even more important, not only that those two are different, is that they are both rooted in the same thing that Tucker is doing, which is that the reason we have a reaction to the kid in one direction is because white people are the overwhelmingly dominant destructive force in the world of the United States.
And the reason that we look at the other context and go, well, that's no good, is because white people are the dominant force in the United fucking states.
Both of them are just the same, are different reactions to the same thing.
If you weren't so fucking racist, no one would care in either situation.
If you weren't so fucking racist, when that kid said, hey, I wish I had browner skin and brown eyes, everybody would be like, fucking yeah, you wish you could fly.
So this ad that Tucker is doing for precious metals is for a company called Battalion Metals, which he co-owns.
It's weird because I think that anybody who's actually serious about precious metals doesn't need a Tucker Carlson gold company to get into the market.
So the only people this is even going to attract as customers are Tucker fans who get scared by his content and think that gold will protect them.
It's basically impossible for me to see this company in this ad as anything other than an explicit and knowing attempt to scam people.
I think MGM, their slogan used to be movies for movies' sake.
And I don't know if it might be, but I was watching it and the opening came up, you know, and the title card and the MGM, and it had movies for movie's sake.
And then Amazon Studios shows up right over top of it.
And I was like, boy, you guys got to get rid of that.
The movies for movie sakes has got to be gone now.
I think this is maybe the most nakedly racist piece of content that I've seen from someone as high profile as Tucker in the time that I've been doing this.
It may be hard to remember at this point, but this is his response to ICE shooting a woman in her car.
This is kind of crazy that he's not really talking about the specifics of that at all, choosing instead to abstractly defend ICE's right to terrorize the population because they're upholding the natural order Tucker demands exist where white people are the majority and have all the power.
And in order to, you know, not talk about that shooting, he will talk about the church, but the church protest was in response to the shooting.
If there's no such thing as equality under the law, if you can be punished more lightly or more severely based on your race, your ethnicity, your religion, we're all in trouble.
All of us.
First of all, we're all degraded because that's the definition of immoral.
Blood guilt is not real, despite what our leaders tell us.
And it's totally possible that you and your group, your community, are going to wind up on the wrong side of that someday.
But for right now, it's very obvious that whites are on the wrong side of that.
And you can tell by the scope of the people at the ICE protest.
So this was Minneapolis just a couple of nights ago.
This is a bunch of, of course, primarily white, because Minneapolis, one of the last big cities in America with a sizable white population, running into a church and threatening the prisoners in the church.
Yeah, he doesn't seem to want to look at the power dynamics that he's discussing and thinking about like how they're corrupt and how we don't need them.
I think we've gone so many times through this cycle of like, well, I know you said that shit, but it's too hard to re-litigate now where it's like, no, fuck you.
This is a bunch of, of course, primarily white, because Minneapolis, one of the last big cities in America with a sizable white population, running into a church and threatening the parishioners in the church.
And you've probably seen footage of this, but listen carefully to the clip you're about to hear.
And you can hear effectively racial epithets aimed at white people.
It is that like Pat Robertson is not saying something that is outside on the fringes.
Pat Robertson is saying something that is inside, and other people mask that by saying other things.
Pat Robertson's belief that gay people cause hurricanes is identical to any other belief of like, oh, well, the reason I don't like gay people is because they degrade society or because they blankety blank.
It's not real.
None of it's real.
What's inside is the idea that gay people are wrong.
Reason that I'm drawing the parallel to the hurricanes thing is that like it's less about the you know the hatred that's underneath it and more about the willingness to be a public figure who's talking about magic.
Yeah, that's more like that was something that like that was that was a pretty niche set that we all kind of laughed at.
Yeah, and I think that's where Tucker's positioning himself.
I have such a strange history with that because I remember being asked by my church librarian to read the first Harry Potter book to make sure that there wasn't too much satanic imagery for the other kids to read about.
It was destroyed by Washington and Brussels, who pushed Russia into this war.
They wanted this war.
They said they wanted this war.
They got the war.
Very few of their people have been killed in the war, but hundreds and hundreds, likely over a million, Ukrainians have been killed in this war.
You think Ukraine will be majority Ukrainian in 100 years?
You think the land in Ukraine will be owned by Ukrainians in 20 years?
No, of course not.
It won't be Russia that did that.
It'll be the West.
And you have to wonder why.
Well, the fact that Ukraine was white and Christian, one of the last big concentrations of white Christians on the planet, maybe that has something to do with it.
So the same attitudes that did that, that are at work in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and very much here in the United States were sort of distilled in the clip you're about to see from a church a couple of days ago in Minneapolis.
Disrupting a church service, people who are committing no crime.
We've done nothing wrong, screaming at him for being white Christians.
That's it right there.
That's it right there.
And you should know that that's not the last clip like that you're going to see, not just tonight, but in the future, because that's the animating spirit behind what you're watching.
No one is making an economic case for mass migration.
Nobody is making an economic case for keeping tens of millions of illegals in this country because there isn't an economic case for it.
There is no case that begins with, let me tell you how this will make our country better.
No one even makes that case.
The case they're making is we are replacing the people who founded this country, who built the system for themselves, by the way, with a brand new people who have very little in common with those people.
What is it in the brain that will allow you to be primed?
You know, like that, that Tucker saying, oh, they even shouted racial epithets towards white people.
And they fucking didn't.
But after that clip was played in its entirety, everybody who's a fan of Tucker listening to it was like, I can't believe they would shout such white racial epithets.
And I think that, yeah, I think slick media is good at getting you to think whatever you have just heard or whatever you're hearing is like confirmation of what was just said.
And then there's that appeal to authority where it's like, well, he said it, so I maybe misheard it because he's the authority on the whole thing or whatever it is.
There's a certain degree of racism there, and there's a certain degree of entitlement.
I think people who are, you know, in religious groups like that, it's not the type of Christianity that I practice, but I think that they're entitled and that entitlement comes from a supremacy, a white supremacy.
And they think that this country was built for them, that it is a Christian country when actually we left England because we wanted religious freedom.
It's religious freedom, but only if you're a family.
It's not a Christian and only if you're a white male.
I mean, it's hard to, you don't ever want to take Don Lemon literally because he's disconnected from reality.
And you can say, well, actually, he's got a white boyfriend and he lives in the Hamptons.
Who's entitled here?
But it's fruitless, and it diminishes you to rebut a Don Lemon rant to some facelift lady on the specifics because the specifics don't matter because it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't need to make sense.
All you need to understand is the spirit behind it, which is hate.
Hate and resentment and the desire for revenge.
That's what this is.
And there's no other explanation that anyone's even offered up of the desire for revenge yourself.
And so, really, it's time to just be completely honest.
This is an act of hatred and aggression toward the population of the United States, American citizens, people who were born here, people whose grandparents were born here.
They are hated by the people in charge and have been for a long time.
And the plan, which is pretty close to completion, actually, it's not a distant goal.
It's like almost here, is to replace them, render them powerless.
And if people like Don Lemon have any say over it, hurt them.
Just listen to what they say.
You don't have to conspiracy theorize.
Just open your eyes and listen, and you can tell what they have planned for you because it's happened in a lot of places.
It always happens.
And so these are fights worth having, actually, because it's not about preserving racial purity.
It's about preserving your country in recognizable form, preserving your life and the lives of your children.
It's fascinating how explicit Tucker is comfortable being now.
He feels like having less white people around him is somehow doing him harm.
And there's no reason that a person should have to harm themselves.
So he's entitled to support forcefully removing immigrants from the country.
At the end there, Tucker says that this isn't about racial purity.
It's about preserving the country so it's recognizable for your children.
This isn't him saying that he disagrees with the people arguing for racial purity.
It's him giving a slightly different spin.
If you want to forcefully impose a white majority on the population so the blood stays pure, that sounds racist.
But if you want to forcefully impose a white majority on the population so you can keep power away from people who look different than you, that's cool and political.
I do agree with him, though.
This is a fight worth having.
It's not an argument worth having, but if he wants to fight, I think I'd fight him.
Well, if one argument, if we're having an argument and on one side, somebody says, see, white people are like Bill and the rest of the world is Beatrix Kiddo, then the other side of the argument is, go home, go home, stay there, and just watch your movies by yourself.
I just, I just, I, like, I chose the moment you said Tucker to try and avoid the, even at the beginning with his run on sentence, to try and be like, hey, listen, this pot calls kettles fucking black.
Yeah, so Tucker, what I'll tell you is this happened not far from downtown Minneapolis.
So there are police everywhere all the time, right?
I mean, it's a pretty concentrated area with police.
And these rioters had two hours, two hours to go through multiple FBI vehicles.
There's another vehicle that was parked right behind this one where they were able, they had enough time and they weren't worried about Minneapolis police showing up.
So they took a toe strap out of the back of a pickup truck, mounted it to and tied it around the weapons locker in the other vehicle, mounted it to the pickup truck and yanked it out that way.
And they're not worried at all about any repercussions from Minneapolis PD.
As soon as it happened, I went over to Minneapolis PD, who I figured out were about a block away from there, and I gave them the information.
I gave them the description of the individual.
I gave them the video.
I let them take a picture of the person's face.
I gave them the license plate number, as well as the car that he was in.
This guy that just stole not just a rifle, but a select fire rifle, an automatic rifle from an FBI vehicle.
They chose not to go after the vehicle that they could see down the street.
He hadn't even left yet.
But these cowards that are at the higher ranks of MPD, they're under people like Jacob Fry, who was basically Mayor's soyboy.
If you knew in a city in, let's say, rural Georgia that somebody just stole an automatic rifle and you see them in your sites, those sheriff's departments are going to go after them immediately.
So by the time Nick is doing this interview, the guy who stole the gun in that video had already been apprehended.
He's over here on Nazi chat shows whining about how no one's doing anything and all the lib cops are cucked when someone had actually done something already.
Also, it was an FBI guy's guns.
This may be a federal crime.
It might not be something that the local cops could even deal with.
I get that Nick Sortor is very scandalized by this crime, but it's not that uncommon for guns to get stolen from cops.
The Trace reported in 2018 that they'd reviewed records from, quote, more than 100 law enforcement agencies and found that they had collectively reported the loss or theft of at least 1,781 guns between 2008 and 2017.
Four of those guns were fully automatic machine guns.
I think the point we're trying to get here is there's just so many fucking guns that the government can lose a thousand of them and be like, eh, we'll replace it.
I'm not saying that if you steal a gun from a cop's car, you shouldn't get arrested.
It's just not something that requires suspending the Constitution unless you're a fucking baby or you're just desperate to try and find the justification to suspend the Constitution.
Nick Sortor sounds like a fucking baby.
In fact, I know somebody in Missouri from when I was growing up.
Like, if that makes sense, you know, like, even with most crimes, you could still have a conversation with somebody and they'd be like, yeah, you're right.
And now, granted, I think that I try to be as fair as I can.
And if there were some kind of like, you know, right-wing protest that was going on and like they had stolen a gun out of like at the Malhur Wildlife Refuge.
I mean, most crimes could probably be solved the next day by like knocking on their door or calling ahead, being like, hey, come on, we know you committed that crime.
I mean, these FBI agents that are out there, like FBI agents, DHS agents, they're not trained in crowd control, right?
That's not their job, but there are federal resources to handle that.
And we're not using them.
We're putting them on standby.
And I'm sorry, like, I'm a big supporter of the Trump administration.
I think they're doing a fantastic job, but I'm a little worried that we're sleeping on what's actually going on in Minneapolis because some polls came out saying that, oh, well, some people don't approve of what's going on with ICE operations.
And so, like, the administration is a little bit fearful, I think I'll say, of deploying troops into the streets to restore order because they don't like the poll numbers that are coming out.
And you know what?
80 million people voted for this to happen, right?
I personally think maybe those poll numbers, if they're even real, some of the reason that people say they're not approving of the job that ICE is doing is because they're not deporting enough people.
You know, I was thinking about this, listening to those two talk, and then I thought, like, all of our movies about World War II have the Nazis, you know, with their uniforms and looking very imposing.
But I'm listening to them and I'm thinking, the reason you got to have a Hitler or a Trump is because the rest of the people are fucking dorks.
They're these dorks.
That's who the Nazis really were.
They got a lunatic to headbang for a while, and that got people on board.
But these are the dorks.
These are the dorks who get concentration camps and shit like that.
Joe Rigny is a pastor who came to some national attention for writing a book about how empathy can be a sin and also for getting the boot from the Bethlehem College and Seminary for his ties to Christian nationalism.
Sure.
After that, he moved to Idaho where he now works with another pastor who Tucker has interviewed named Doug Wilson.
And they run what Politico has described as a, quote, theocratic regime in a small town there.
I hate that this is a situation we're in, because I was more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt that this is kind of no good to protest in a way that disrupts a church service.
But this guy's laying it on too thick for this not to be trolling.
One thing that normal churches don't usually say is we're totally a normal church.
That's usually the kind of thing you hear from big-time weirdos and creeps who are hiding behind religion.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about the city's church to make any kind of authoritative statement on what does or doesn't go on there.
But the criticism that they've received over the years and the criticism that Joe Rigny has received about his theology does not just come from the left.
He was part of a Baptist organization and he preached a couple things that were out of line with standard doctrine.
One of the issues was the Christian nationalism piece, but another major problem had to do with baptizing children.
Child baptism is a messy question among different Christian faiths because regardless of whether or not you think it's important, you kind of have to think that the other side is damning children to hell.
No matter which side you're on, you're like, oh, those people.
Many Protestant denominations support child baptism, but the Baptists typically hold to the belief that there's not something magical about baptism and that a person is saved by God's grace before or after baptism.
It's all the same.
So it's reserved for a person after they can make a credible affirmation of their own faith.
Rigny has supported the recognition of child baptisms, which is out of step with the Baptists and was part of him having to run off to this cult in Ohio.
I'm sure you've seen the famous photograph from the Spanish Civil War, the opening months of the Spanish Civil War, where the communist forces surround a statue of Jesus and open fire on it, a statue, because they were more straightforward then.
These protests were targeting and trying to take down Jesus because to him, one of Jesus' most important issues is protecting the feelings of white dudes.
It's attention-grabbing and maybe a bit sensational to protest at a church, but it's also not something that never happens.
Regardless of whether or not the act of protesting at a church service is acceptable, the protesters in this case were there to confront Christians with their own standards.
These were Christians saying, how can you profess to hold this faith and do nothing while this shit's going on?
The aim wasn't to tear down Jesus.
It was to tear down the idea that Jesus would support ICE.
The disconnect is that Tucker and his ilk genuinely think that Jesus would be a white nationalist and that Christians who don't agree with them aren't really following Jesus.
Protesters saying that Jesus wouldn't support ICE is the same to him as them saying Jesus isn't real.
It feels the same to him because they're both a refutation of something he holds sacred.
Yeah, you know, we've talked about this, I think you and I off air more, but it is a fundamental disrespecting of somebody else's beliefs to not meet them where they are.
If you are coming to somebody who believes that Jesus was a white nationalist, it is exactly as disrespectful for you to be like, well, that's not what your God believes as it is for them to say that it's not what your God believes.
You're just realizing that you're in conflict and that there is no getting over it.
So the choice is either to conflict or to leave.
There's not a like, no, you're just misunderstanding your God.
And it's the solution to the kind of mob violence that we see, right?
People always look for scapegoats.
They want to find someone to blame for all their problems.
And because they have problems, and they don't want to, if they can't admit that the biggest problem in the universe is me, like my biggest problem is me, right?
Like I think I heard someone say that one time.
And my biggest problem is me.
And if they can't admit that, then they're going to start blaming everybody.
And eventually they get enough people sharing their grievance that they're going to go take it out.
And we saw that on Sunday.
And so the only hope is own it, acknowledge like I'm the problem and God still loves me.
He sent Jesus to die for my sins, for goodness sake.
And so he's welcoming me back.
Like you can be the prodigal.
And I, and I just, again, as a pastor, thank you for having me on.
And I just want to say to the people listening, like, if you're the prodigal, if you're running away, whether you're a leftist or right-wing or non-committal or whatever, I don't care.
Like, if you're the prodigal running away from God, like you can come home.
Christ is the same as submission to the state because to rebel or protest against things Trump's government is doing, that would be an act of sowing chaos.
On and after January 6th, it wasn't a choice between Christ and chaos.
I have no ill will towards people who are religious, but this isn't religion.
This is using Jesus as a weapon against people who are inclined to seek comfort in faith.
If you want to make your religious convictions about maintaining the white birth rate and carrying water for federal agencies terrorizing immigrants, that's your prerogative.
But I don't think you can expect people to not call your beliefs a racist cult.
Christianity isn't a racist cult, but your shit is.
Christians are trying to call out these people as not representing what they believe Christianity to be.
And you hear a lot of that in the wake of this church protest.
It's my feeling that as a non-Christian, it would be pretty condescending for me to think that I can police their community and say what's acceptable for them or not.
But with the rise of this kind of Christian nationalist white identity theology, we have been seeing like responsible Christians step up and try to draw a line.
I'm not sure if it's all been successful, but there are people who are voicing that.
I'm not here to tell you what is and is not Christian.
And if you are going to be a Christian bloc and those people are in charge, then they are using you as a majority.
The only reason that we have a religious right in this country is because 10% of the religious people exploit the 90% who don't really give a shit about any of that.