Tucker Says Trump is Not Capable of Fixing the Country

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
December 8, 2018

Tucker Carlson gave a fascinating interview to Swiss media, which should really be read in its entirety.

I will just pull a few bits here.

Die Weltwoche:

In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don’t say very much about Trump’s record.

That’s true.

Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?

No.

He hasn’t?

No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn’t done any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I’ve come to believe that Trump’s role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don’t think he’s capable. I don’t think he’s capable of sustained focus. I don’t think he understands the system. I don’t think the Congress is on his side. I don’t think his own agencies support him. He’s not going to do that.

I think Trump’s role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It’s a huge country, but that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like’ “Why don’t our borders work?” “Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?” Or my favorite of all, “What’s the point of NATO?” The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven’t existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer.

Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?

Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I’ve come to believe he’s not capable of it.

Why should he be not capable?

Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it’s designed to be complex as a way of diffusing power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power. They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative process, hasn’t learned anything, hasn’t and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn’t done all the things you need to do so. It’s mostly his fault that he hasn’t achieved those things. I’m not in charge of Trump.

That is at least partially accurate.

My argument has generally been that Trump doesn’t have the ability to do anything because he is hamstrung by the system, while Tucker is claiming that he could navigate around the system if he had a different skillset.

What I would say is that this is true in some cosmic realm of pure mathematics, but the hard reality of the situation is that a person with that political skillset never could have been elected, as it is impossible for the skillset that got Trump elected to overlap with the skillset Tucker is referencing in one man. These two human types are in fundamental contrast to one another.

So I am not convinced that Trump is failing to do something he could do. And I guess Tucker isn’t saying that either. And I like that he is ascribing him a meaningful role in history while also acknowledging that he won’t likely accomplish any policy goals.

Tucker also makes an aristocratic argument against populism, which is somewhat fascinating but which I don’t really understand the value of trying to explain to people.

The title of your book is “Ship of Fools”. You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest fool?

I mean let me just be clear. I’m not against an aristocratic system. I’m not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn’t have the self-awareness that you need to be wise. I’m not arguing for populism, actually. I’m arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.

This is technically true. There should be an elite ruling class, that is necessary for any society.

However, the current aristocracy is completely and totally corrupt. And the reason that Tucker can’t say is “because the Jews.” The old anglo elite broke a long time ago.

And they were better, and most of the demonization of them has been done by Jews themselves. I have said it before and I will say it again: No robber baron ever called me “goy.”

So the fact is that there is no benevolent elite to fall back on, and put back in power. To the extent that any of our remaining ruling class is still white and Christian, they have totally bowed down to the new Jewish elite.

I would love it if there was some existing Episcopalian family of power and wealth who we could rally around, but the fact is that there is not, so populism – that is, a peasant revolt – is the singular possible political movement. From that, a new aristocracy can be established.

Perhaps the most interesting comment was on why there cannot be a civil war in America – because people are low-testosterone faggots who smoke pot and are afraid of violence.

How close to a revolution is your country?

By revolution, let me be clear, I don’t think that we’re anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides for a bunch of different reasons… Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably too … What you don’t have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable with violence and we don’t have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn’t. I don’t want violence for violence. I appall violence, but I just don’t see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.

If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, “Would you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?” Most Americans, if they’re being honest, would say, “no, I’m not okay with that. I’m not for that.” Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.

“I’d rather my daughter married someone who’s Hispanic than liberal”, someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures, but that’s one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It’s a continental country. It’s a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you’re Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.

That is all spot-on. This is something that a lot of white nationalist types do not understand. Previous revolutions happened in times when people lived in violence and were comfortable with violence.

Other than being low-testosterone pot-smoking faggots, we are also a completely godless people, and whatever your opinion on religion, most people will only give their lives in wars if they believe God is going to reward them for having done so. That is why the only revolutions you see now are in Islamic countries. This is why the killing of Christianity was the single most important achievement of the Jews. It put people in a state where they are literally physically incapable of fighting back.

I am not a good Christian lad, but I do believe in God, and I believe there is an angel watching over me. If I didn’t believe that, I would be on a large yacht with a lot of highly desirable females right now, rather than forced out of my home by Jews, living a life of constant struggle.

I don’t agree at all with Tucker’s theory of self-segregation by political orientation, as the facts show that the opposite of that is happening. What we are seeing with California is that liberals are fleeing the disaster they’ve created, but rather than having learned from it, and changing direction, they are instead trying to foist the same destructive policies on the places they move to.

Furthermore, because leftist policies lead to financial destruction, the various brown people are showing that they are more than happy to abandon liberal zones and move in to feed off of more productive white zones. This modern liberalism is an aggressive virus, and it spreads and infects wherever it is allowed to. Short of putting up walls between states, we are not going to stop liberals and brown people from flocking to the most productive – the whitest – remaining areas and destroying them.

And that is important: liberalism is destructive while conservatism is productive. And destroying things is a lot easier than creating them.

Whenever I hear “people will self-segregate,” it sounds like a cope. I don’t know if that is the case with Tucker, or if he just hasn’t been looking to closely at the issue.

Tucker even went full Ted Kaczinski.

This revolution you are warning about – What needs to be done to stop it from happening?

Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can’t metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they’re not designed to, they’re not. If you asked your average old person what’s the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them to say, “Well, my friends are dead”. But that’s not what they say. Or “I have to go to the bathroom six times a night”. That’s not what they say. You know what they say? “Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don’t recognize this.” All people hate that. It doesn’t mean you’re a bigot, it means you’re human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can’t have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.

I don’t really have anything to add there, other than that I would advise people to read Uncle Ted’s Manifesto.

And if you’re a reading type, I would advise you to read the books by French sociologist Jacques Ellul, upon which Ted’s manifesto was based. Those are “The Technological Society” and “The Technological System.” These are very difficult reading materials, which most people will not be able to get through. It’s the type of thing where it takes 3-4 minutes to read a page.

But they are absolutely the single most important books that no one ever talks about.

I recommend starting with the Unabomber Manifesto, then trying Society, then System.

To be clear, I am not a Luddite anymore, and do believe that technology must be embraced. However, we need to understand what is happening, and that we have a situation where consumerism, primarily, is driving the development of both research and development (more so the latter, obviously, but both).

We have become slaves to the direction of technology within the consumerist system, and technology is no longer working for us, but we for it.

And then, there’s this.

Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?

The EU has been doomed since the first day because it’s inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because people wanted them, it’s organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it’s organized along lines that make sense. They evolved over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you’ve got a better idea, is insane!

That is as spot on as anything could be.

These people are fighting against the laws of nature, and the backlash is already here. That backlash will either reestablish the natural order, or it will simply destroy everything completely.

We’ll have to wait and see.

No one can predict how that will turn out.

What I can predict is that Tucker Carlson is not going to be allowed to continue saying the things he is saying on the biggest news show on television.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS