Tucker Carlson’s Colorblind Christianity
First published at Counter-Currents on December 24, 2025
1,571 words
On December 18th, 2025, Tucker Carlson took the stage at Turning Point USA’s AmFest with a message from Yahweh: it is immoral to notice that His chosen people work together as a team against the interests of individualists like Tucker himself.
At least that is how I interpreted the following:
I’m not an anti-Semite for a very specific reason. Not because it’s unpopular, or my donors don’t like it, I don’t have any donors. I’m not an anti-Semite because anti-Semitism is immoral. In my religion, it is immoral to hate people for how they were born. Period.
But that is not a limited principle. That is a universal principle. It applies to every human being on planet Earth. You may not, you are prohibited by my religion, which is Christianity, from hating people for how they were born. Because God created them with his spark in his image. Because they have souls.
You can disagree with them. You can hate their ideas. You may even find yourself, and I do, I’ll confess it, hating them for a moment. But you can’t hate everyone who’s like them. You can’t punish people for crimes they didn’t commit. That’s the basis of our justice system. That’s the basis of Christian ethics. That’s why we have what are called human rights.
. . . we don’t consider people in terms of the groups to which they belong. We consider them as individuals the way that God created them.
. . . You are not allowed to hate people based on their bloodline. We do not believe in blood guilt.
I see things very differently. First of all, groups are real. Second, groups have different identities and interests. Third, because of these differences, groups inevitably have conflicts of interest. There is no reason for these conflicts to get ugly, but the more different groups that share the same society, the greater the chances of hatred and violence.
This is why I am an ethnonationalist: I think the best societies are the least diverse, thus I support having borders. I support the right of distinct peoples to their own sovereign homelands where they can live as they please. And I support the remigration of millions of nonwhites who were imposed on white countries in a totalitarian social engineering experiment called “multiculturalism.” Separating different groups is the key to peace and harmony.
Thus, when I see members of groups with different identities and interests, I am wary. This is not because they are “guilty” of something. It is just because of who they are. My wariness is not a “punishment” for a crime. Guilt and innocence, crime and punishment, love and hate don’t come into this. For instance, I am wary of blacks for the same reason I am wary of pitbulls: they are a dangerous breed, nothing more. There’s no need to make this into some sort of moral drama.
The same is true of immigration policies. I don’t want closed borders and remigration simply because some non-white immigrants are criminal but because even the best non-white immigrants don’t belong in white societies. They aren’t “guilty” of anything. They are just incompatible, but that’s enough. Keeping them out or sending them back is not “punishing” them. Nor is it anything personal, like “hatred.”
Tucker talks about “hate” like it is always a bad thing. But everybody hates someone, and it is hypocritical posturing to pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is perfectly reasonable and healthy to hate people who have personally injured you, especially if you get no justice. It is also perfectly reasonable to hate people who deny you justice.
Yes, hate is bad if it is totally baseless. This is why anti-racists like to talk about “hating strangers merely for the color of their skin.” It seems crazy to have deep personal feelings of antipathy (“hate”) for complete strangers based on superficial traits. But it is not “hate” when, for instance, a young white woman decides to avoid black or Muslim men because they belong to a rape-prone population.
In short, this rhetoric about “hate” is designed to make conscientious people more vulnerable to dangerous people. (People who lack conscience are immune to such guilt propaganda.) Telling you to “Never relax around blacks” is not “hate.” It is just a prudent safety measure, akin to buckling one’s seatbelt. Not every black man is a criminal. Not every car trip ends with a crash. But taking simple precautions to avoid becoming a victim makes it less likely that blacks will give you a good reason to hate them.
Becoming a racist was very difficult for me, because I am an individualist by inclination. But there are billions of people on this planet, and we simply do not have time to deal with each and every one of them as an individual. Thus we need shortcuts. One such shortcut is to play the odds. Fortunately, individuals come in packs, and packs have different traits. Of course, we understand that “Not all Xs are like that,” but some Xs are more likely to be like that than others, and in a world where time and information are scarce, we would be fools to ignore group differences.
Thus making a moral imperative of “colorblind” individualism is crazy. First of all, you can’t practice it, so you are always “guilty.” Second, to the extent that you do practice it, it makes you stupid because it tells you that basic inductive reasoning—which is the foundation of common sense as well as science—is a sin. Third, to the extent that you practice it, it also makes you vulnerable, because you will be just as friendly to pitbulls as you are to poodles.
Eventually, I began to be suspicious of the preachers of “blindness” as a virtue. Perhaps they were up to no good. Specifically, what if the preachers of colorblind individualism were working together as a collective to subvert and dominate an individualist society?
The trick is simple: preach individualism and practice collectivism. When they want something from you, they demand to be treated as individuals. When you want something from them, they will pretend to give you a fair shake, but ultimately, they will give any benefits to members of their tribe.
Now, if a tribe of grifters wanted to keep you from noticing that they work together as a collective, wouldn’t they preach the virtue of color-blind individualism to you? Wouldn’t they make it a moral imperative not to notice that you are being swindled?
This brings us to the question of anti-Semitism. The so-called “Jewish Question” is back. The Jewish Question first emerged in the eighteenth century, when under the influence of the Enlightenment, Jews were given equal rights in the nations where they lived. The question was simple: Since Jews are a nation unto themselves, who have survived in a diaspora because of their intense ethnocentrism, won’t giving them equal rights in their host societies in effect give them dual citizenship and unfair advantages over their neighbors? Won’t it allow Jews to be collectivist cheats in an individualist society? The answer, of course, is: Yes.
Game theory shows that collectivist strategies will defeat individualist strategies. Thus we would expect collectivist groups to become increasingly wealthy and powerful by gaming the system in individualist societies. We would also expect that the achievements of such groups would be over and above what you would expect if they were living in a genuinely “colorblind meritocracy.”
America’s ruling elites are fed largely by the Ivy League universities, Harvard chief among them. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Harvard and other prominent American universities had policies to keep Jewish enrollment low, below the levels one would predict based simply on merit alone. However, after anti-Semitic enrollment policies were dismantled, the number of Jews in Harvard’s administration, faculty, and student body soared.
Was this merely “meritocracy” at work? Ron Unz’s landmark essay “The Myth of American Meritocracy” argues persuasively that Jews are massively overrepresented at Harvard and that ethnic nepotism is largely to blame. Thus Jews gained a foothold at Harvard by demanding that whites treat them as individuals. Then, once established, they expanded their presence through nepotism at the expense of whites.
Of course, Jews are not unique in being a highly ethnocentric group. The same is true of Indians and other South Asians. The population of India alone is more than 1,000 times larger than the world Jewish community and consists not just of Hindu castes but of tens of thousands of endogamous tribal communities each of which feels completely justified in victimizing members of other Indian groups. So of course Indian immigrants would have no compunctions about preaching “colorblind meritocracy” to the rest of us while they practice tribal nepotism.
This throws light on the emerging “post woke” American Right. When both fervent Zionists and Indian anchor babies are denouncing anything that smacks of white identity politics as “Woke Right,” they aren’t repudiating identity politics; they are practicing it. They know full well that the only thing that can stop their brand of identity politics is white identity politics, which is why they will do anything they can to forestall its rise.
In his AmFest speech, Tucker tries to repudiate both anti-Semitism and anti-white racism by affirming a sort of color-blind Christian universalism:
So anti-Semitism is not just naughty, it’s immoral. And it is precisely as immoral as hating any other group. And that would include other groups in the United States that are hated and have been under attack for decades. And that would include white men, who did nothing to become white men. They were born that way.
But this won’t work. It won’t work on Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss, who are rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of Christians blinding themselves to Jewish cabals. It won’t work on Vivek Scammaswamy and other monkey idol worshipers, either.
If the first step in your solution to America’s problems is for everyone to become Tucker’s brand of Christian, you have no solution at all. In fact, Tucker’s approach can only deepen and prolong our problems by blinding people to their real source and solution.
So couldn’t we just wind things back to a less woke, more colorblind and meritocratic America? Not unless you want to create a secret police force to prevent millions of Indians, Somalians, Jews, and other highly tribal peoples from cheating. But the only way that would happen is if white Americans started practicing an identity politics of our own.
Source: https://counter-currents.com/2025/12/tucker-carlsons-colorblind-christianity/