Delingpole: Tucker Carlson Is Right — Never Apologize!

“Never apologize and never explain. It’s a sign of weakness,” said John Wayne in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. But he was not the first.

Oxford theologian and Master of Balliol College Benjamin Jowett said the same thing in the 19th century.

And in 1636, King Charles I wrote: “Never make a defence or apology before you be accused.”

So Tucker Carlson has some pretty strong precedent for his decision not to say sorry, not even one tiny bit, for his supposedly “racist” comments on the subject of immigration on his Fox News show.

As Cassandra Fairbanks reports for The Gateway Pundit:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is not backing down from the liberal rage mob that has lead to multiple companies pulling advertisements from his show.

On Monday’s episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the outspoken host refused to back down from his statement that illegal immigration makes the country “poorer and dirtier and more divided.”

The commentary naturally led to the left grabbing their torches and pitchforks and calling for advertiser boycotts. Four companies, Pacific Life, Nautilus Inc., the parent company of Bowflex, NerdWallet and SmileDirectClub all caved and pulled their ads. Three others who faced hysteria from the left, Farmers Insurance, Mitsubishi and Bayer/Alka Seltzer all refused to back down and said their ads will continue to air.

True to form, Carlson responded to the backlash with facts and statistics — refusing to self censor.

Carlson’s response isn’t a sign of maverick stubbornness. It’s a sign that like President Trump — (whom he doesn’t much admire, but they do have this in common) — he’s one of the few conservatives out there who understands how to fight the culture wars. You need, at all times, to treat your enemy — the Left — with much the same tenderness, love, and respect the U.S. Marines felt towards the Japanese when they were taking Okinawa. To do otherwise is suicide.

It’s depressing how many conservatives don’t understand this basic and empirically proven truth.

A few months ago, for example, I heard the tragic tale of Toby Young — one of Britain’s finest and most entertaining conservative journalists — whose livelihood was all but destroyed this year as a result of mass assault by a twitchfork mob of rabid, foaming, left-wing offense archeologists.

Young’s only crime, in my view, was to have apologized to his persecutors in the mistaken belief that this would assuage their hunger to destroy him. It didn’t, of course. If you feed them, they only want more.

When you face down the bullies, on the other hand, at worst, you score a draw and you quite often win.

Carlson’s credibility as a doughty and happy warrior of the right can only soar as a result of his decision not back down.

Here is another perfect example of this tactic at work, courtesy of Australian blogger, science researcher, oil explorer, and F-35 expert David Archibald. The enemy, in this case, are all the green activists who, increasingly, turn up at company AGMs to ask annoying questions entirely antithetical to the interests of shareholders. All too often — because business is, for the most part, extremely craven and risk-averse — the CEOs kowtow to their stupid demands.

Archibald shows us that there is a better way. Enjoy!:

The Carnarvon Petroleum AGM this year was marred by a greenie woman repeatedly asking questions about climate, as it was last year. In response, the company’s chairman waffled on about this and that, as he is paid to do. The gathering was getting exasperated by this greenie hijacking the occasion for leftie indoctrination.

The MD in his presentation mentioned that the company had planted trees to offset its carbon emissions. That got my goat up, so when the opportunity came I asked him this question:

I am extremely disappointed that the board has chose to squander shareholders’ funds by planting trees in order to fight a make-believe problem. Can you tell us how many trees are involved, the cost, the tree species, and can shareholders visit their trees?

The room erupted in laughter and the greenie woman remained silent after that.

Last week Westpac held its AGM in Perth, in order to have less interaction with disgruntled shareholders and customers. There were plenty of greenies in attendance and they rotated up to the microphone to make statements on the Paris climate agreement and lending to coal mines, which they don’t like. They became very tedious indeed. The chairman of Westpac waffled back in response, and like St Augustine, said they would do some lending to coal mines, especially the metallurgical ones, but would definitely stop such nefarious activity by 2030 or some such other moveable date.

The greenies got me agitated so I asked this question:

Mr Chairman, given that the dire predictions of the climate hysterics have not come to pass and do not look like they are going to happen, is the board considering the possibility that the bank’s adherence to the Paris agreement could be wrong in fact and that the bank is damaging the Australian economy for no good reason, and beyond that denying shareholders exposure to a profitable line of business?

I was only part way through before the room erupted in applause. In his reply, the chairman changed his tune and talked about how fossil fuels had lifted so many people out of poverty and done so many other good things. The greenies asked no more fake questions and the meeting proceeded with its business.