It’s true, you know: foul speech is a sure sign of a foul mind. It’s also a sure sign of a foul ideology. That’s why the f-word is so popular among leftists. It packs so much into so little: self-righteousness, aggression, intolerance, lack of self-control, contempt for reasoned debate, and the unashamed rejection of civilized values. You could say that the f-word is a bawl of barbarism. And here it is in action, illustrating all those leftist values, among students protesting against eugenics and “scientific racism”:

A bawl of barbarism as students protest eugenics and “scientific racism”

The faces of five protesting students are visible. Four of them seem to be either White gentiles or Jews. But the young woman holding up a sign saying “FUCK YOUR FREE SPEECH” seems to be an East Asian, quite possibly with a high IQ and from a long line of civilized, law-abiding ancestors. Nevertheless, she wants to destroy “your free speech” — that is, the free speech not just of Charles Murray, but of Whites in general. After all, whatever her precise origins in East Asia, that young woman and her co-ethnics don’t come from a culture that values free speech or has any tradition of free speech. And now that she’s in America she’s working to “fuck free speech.” No sane observer of political reality should be surprised by this.

The glass house of free speech

But I know a group of intelligent, educated and articulate people who are surprised by it. The group are called libertarians. Alas, you can lead libertarians to reality, but you can’t make them think. For example, most libertarians are passionate supporters of both free speech and open borders. This is a lot like supporting both glass houses and throwing stones. And indeed, free speech is a lot like a house built of glass. Free speech is rare and fragile and much easier to destroy than to create. It hasn’t existed in the vast majority of cultures for the vast majority of human history.

Rare and fragile: The Crystal Palace in London

And it’s no coincidence that nineteenth-century Britain saw both the rise of free speech and the construction of the Crystal Palace, a giant house of glass built for the Great Exhibition of 1851. To create the ideological structure of free speech and the physical structure of the Crystal Palace required high intelligence, ingenuity, cooperation and, you might say, a love of light and openness. But the Crystal Palace burned down in 1936 (shortly before another interesting burning, as we shall see). The Palace was rare and fragile and didn’t last long. Free speech faces the same fate. After all, Britain has imported millions of non-White stone-throwers and arsonists from the Third World. They don’t build glass houses: they smash and burn them.

This is why libertarians and secularists on the left can’t be honest when they defend the glass house of free speech against its stone-throwing and gasoline-pouring non-White enemies. For example, when non-White Muslims machine-gunned cartoonists and writers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, the staunchly secularist Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson responded not with a bang, but a whimper:

Staunch secularist Martin Rowson responds to the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Rowson didn’t dare to draw Muhammad, because he was (quite rightly) scared of being murdered for intruding on something sacred to Muslims. But look at these two examples of how Rowson has regularly intruded on something sacred to Christians, the death of Christ on the cross:

Banal blasphemies: Martin Rowson’s unfunny crucifixion cartoons

Rowson’s crucifixion cartoons — and there are lots more where those two came from — are both unfunny and foul-minded. Rowson is effectively saying “Fuck you!” to Christianity. His cartoons are banally blasphemous and he seems to enjoy dragging the crucifixion in where it isn’t relevant. After all, he knows that he’s in no danger from effete modern Christians. But when Muslims machine-gun Rowson’s fellow cartoonists in the name of Muhammad, he doesn’t dare even draw, let alone mock or satirize, anything representative of Islam and least of all Muhammad himself. In short, Rowson is frightened of Islam. He isn’t frightened of Christianity.

Whites are to blame!

And why is he frightened of Islam? Because mass immigration has firmly established Islam and its violent adherents on British soil. Muslim immigration has been disastrous for free speech, but Rowson and other secularist leftists can’t admit this. Nor can libertarians, who knew instantly what was to blame for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It wasn’t Muslim immigration, which had flooded France with millions of illiberal, corrupt aliens who didn’t believe in free speech. No, not at all, it was the policies of the French government and the attitudes of French Whites. The government hadn’t supported free speech strongly enough and Whites hadn’t argued for Enlightenment values hard enough.

If they had, then all would have been well. All those millions of low-IQ Muslims from illiberal cultures with absolutely no tradition of free speech would have embraced the Enlightenment, founded thriving Voltaire societies, and chuckled wryly when Charlie Hebdo published a foul-minded cartoon of a naked Muhammad bending over to display a star over his anus and a pair of dangling testicles. It would have been so easy to turn those non-White Third-Worlders into dedicated students of Voltaire and fans of Charlie Hebdo. But French Whites betrayed their Muslim brothers and sisters by not sufficiently promoting the Enlightenment values that, deep down, Muslims all over the world are longing to embrace.

Meteorizing murder

And the same was true in Britain when Muslims in the heavily enriched northern city of Bradford set fire to Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses (1987). For libertarians, Whites were again to blame, not mass immigration. As in France, Whites hadn’t promoted free speech and the Enlightenment hard enough to all those non-White Third-Worlders who, deep down, were longing to embrace it. Again, it would have been so easy to turn the Muslims into dedicated students of John Stuart Mill. Again, Whites betrayed their Muslim brothers and sisters. Or so many libertarians continue to argue. They’re not being honest and I think that, deep down or otherwise, they know it. That’s why so many of them didn’t raise a squeak of protest when a gentle and tolerant Muslim called Asad Shah was stabbed to death on British soil by an avowed enemy of Asad Shah’s free speech.

But libertarians weren’t alone in making little of that brutal and portentous crime. Asad Shah was the victim of what I call a “meteor murder,” that is, a murder that flashes across the headlines and then disappears, despite bearing great political and cultural significance. Or rather: a meteor murder flashes and disappears precisely because it bears political and cultural significance. The leftist media have a narrative of White evil and non-White saintliness. If a murder or other significant crime contradicts that narrative, it’s meteorized.

“Hang the blasphemer!”

And Asad Shah’s murder did contradict that narrative, just like the viciously sadistic murders of the White teenagers Kris Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan in 2005, and the horrible mass rapes of elderly White women in London between 1992 and 2009. In all these cases, non-Whites were the perpetrators, so all these cases flashed across the headlines and disappeared. Similarly, Asad Shah was an Ahmadi Muslim stabbed to death by a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who thought that Ahmadi Muslims are death-worthy heretics (and Tanveer Ahmed still thinks that in his $50,000-a-year prison-cell). Leftists dropped Shah’s murder down the memory-hole because it didn’t fit their narrative of non-White saintliness.

Pakistani Muslims express their longing for free speech

And libertarians ignored Shah’s murder because it didn’t fit their narrative of how Muslims and other non-Whites would happily embrace free speech if only Whites worked harder to make them realize their true desires. Alas for libertarians, there is abundant evidence, both contemporary and historical, that Muslims despise free speech and are eager to destroy it wherever it rears its repulsive, White-supremacist snout. After all, Tanveer Ahmed was inspired by a Pakistani Muslim called Mumtaz Qadri, a body-guard who assassinated his employer, the Muslim politician Salmaan Taseer, because Taseer had “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws” and taken up the cause of “Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman … sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.”

A Pakistani book celebrates the martyr-hero Ilm-ud-Din

And Mumtaz Qadri had been inspired in his turn by Ilm-ud-Din, a young Muslim who stabbed the Hindu publisher Mahashay Rajpal to death in 1929 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. That took place under the British Raj and Ilm-ud-Din faced British justice: he was hanged for murder. His fellow Muslims, by contrast, celebrated his forthright defence of the Prophet and in modern Pakistan he is known as Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din Shahid, that is, Hero Ilm-ud-Din the Martyr. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Mumtaz Qadri became ghazi, “hero,” when he assassinated his employer, and shahid, “martyr,” when he was executed for murder by the Pakistani authorities. The judge who passed the death sentence on him had to flee the country. If he hadn’t, he would sooner or later have met the same fate as Salmaan Taseer, Mahashay Rajpal and many others, including Dr Muhammad Shakil Auj, a “Pakistani academic known for promoting liberal views on Islam” who was “accused of committing blasphemy in a speech he made in the US.” He too was shot to death.

Muslims in Maryland

In other words, there is a long and vibrant tradition of censorship-by-murder among the Muslims of what is now Pakistan (and elsewhere). After Asad Shah’s murder in Glasgow, a human rights lawyer called Aamer Anwar announced: “We do not want to see the importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK.” In other words, Anwar thinks the Britain can import Pakistanis without importing Pakistani culture. Like the libertarians and secularists who think the same, he’s either stupid or dishonest or both. The United States has also imported Pakistanis and so has also imported murderous Pakistani culture. This is the flyer for a mosque in Maryland that hosted a celebration of the Hero-Martyr Mumtaz Qadri:

Maryland mosque and martyr with machine-gun: Muslims in the US celebrate the murderer Mumtaz Qadri

Note how the Urdu script protects Muslims from outside scrutiny just as Hebrew or Yiddish script protects Jews. Even some libertarians and secularists might have second thoughts about Muslim immigration if the flyer were in English and openly stated the nature of the celebration and its martyred hero. But the mosque probably uses Urdu for uncontroversial topics too, because keeping up a foreign language is an excellent way to avoid assimilation and maintain cohesion.

Muslims assert their rights

And Muslims will happily burn books in public and march against free speech, as Britain saw during the Satanic Verses controversy in the 1980s. A Labour minister in Tony Blair’s government revealed the solipsistic nature of leftism when he reminisced to a journalist about “a meeting of Muslims at his constituency surgery … during which one of them had taken Rushdie’s book and kicked it furiously across the room.” The minister, probably the part-Jewish Jack Straw, commented: “That’s when I knew that everything had changed.” No, all that had changed was the then-MP’s awareness of what Muslims are like. After all, Muslims in Britain were burning books and marching against free speech long before the 1980s. They did both of those things in London way back in 1938, two years after the destruction by fire of the Crystal Palace:

Muslims “assert their rights” by book-burning and marching against free speech in London, 1938

Members of the Jamiat-ul-Muslimin, a British Muslim organisation whose members were predominantly working-class South Asians, gathered at one of their regular meetings in King’s Hall on Commercial Road, east London. Here, according to the Guardian of 13 August 1938, they “ceremoniously committed to the flames” a copy of H. G. Wells’s A Short History of the World because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive. This was followed by a protest march by members of the organisation to India House, Aldwych, which accommodated the Indian High Commission in London’s West End. Contrary to the public perception that Britain’s Muslim minority began to find a voice of dissent only as recently as the 1980s, here we have evidence of a group of working-class East End Muslims marching west into the heart of London to assert their rights as Muslims and plead their cause with government officials. (Muslims Protest Against H. G. Wells Book in 1930s Britain, The Huffington Post, 19th September 2012)

Note the approving tone of that report in the leftist Huffington Post. By burning a book and demanding censorship, Muslims were “asserting their rights.” The authors of the report were the leftist academics Rehana Ahmed, “Senior Lecturer in English Studies at Teesside University,” and Florian Stadtler, “Research Fellow in Literature at The Open University.” You might expect even leftist academics to disapprove of book-burning, which has uncomfortable associations with the Nazis. But book-burning is obviously acceptable to leftists when non-Whites are “asserting their rights” thereby. Rehana Ahmed herself is non-White and Florian Stadtler, apparently non-English, is undoubtedly a staunch anti-racist and supporter of open borders to the Third World.

Poisoning Western civilization

And note that these two bibliocaustophilic academics drew on the leftist Guardian for details of the book-burning and march in 1938. Leftists saw clearly before the Second World War that Muslim immigration would be very bad for free speech and secularism. After the Second World War, leftists fully supported Muslim immigration. They then gasped in horror at the way Muslims behaved towards Salman Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo. Or some leftists gasped in horror, anyway. Others were happy to see Muslims begin their assault on Western civilization. As for libertarians: if they were sincere about supporting both free speech and mass immigration, then they were also exceedingly stupid.

But I don’t think some libertarians were or are sincere. After all, great figures of libertarianism, like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, were Jewish. I would read the movement as yet another way for Jews to encourage individualism and atomization among White gentiles who are under collectivist attack. By supporting open borders, libertarianism has helped to kill free speech. Leftists say: “Fuck your free speech.” Muslims say: “Damn your free speech.” In Muslim eyes, it’s a literally damnable doctrine whose practitioners are worthy of death and consignment to the fires of Jahannam, the Muslim hell. Muslim immigration is poison for free speech and Western civilization. But libertarians won’t admit this. Nor will Martin Rowson and the other staunch secularists at the Guardian. So let’s end with a cartoonist who is prepared to tell the truth about Islam, leftism and free speech.

A cartoonist tells the truth about Islam, leftism and free speech

For many on the dissident right, Fox News’ primetime anchor Tucker Carlson is a kind of hero.  He’s pro-Trump and anti-liberal.  He comes off as a true (“paleo”) conservative, and rails against the neo-con agendas of the dominant Right.  He calls out attacks on Whites, both physical and ideological.  He exposes lies and hypocrisy in the liberal mainstream media, especially at CNN and MSNBC.  He is blunt, funny, and smart.  What more could a White alt-righter hope for?

Lots, it turns out.

Night after night, Carlson manages to pull off a remarkable feat:  He manages to criticize the self-serving lies and hypocrisy of the Left with an opposing but, in its own way, often misleading and deficient presentation.  This is no small task.  He and his crew of scriptwriters must put in hours of work each day, to prepare for his nightly one-hour performances.  And surely they have their own in-house censors and ideological gatekeepers who must approve all final topics, themes, wording, and guest-lists.  But they succeed.  Carlson’s Fox team is to be congratulated on achieving their goals.  Much of what they produce is enlightening and important.  But unfortunately, they are to be equally condemned for all their implicit biases, shallow analysis, and vital omissions.  In what follows, I will attempt to dissect Carlson and his crew, in order to lay bare both the insights and the deceptions that he offers up each evening.

Let me start with his upbringing and family background.  Now, in general, I try to avoid assigning blame for an individual’s faults to his past or his family.  People are, for the most part, responsible adults, and must be held personally responsible for their own actions.  But in this case, Carlson’s family history reveals a fairly lengthy tale of woe, malfeasance, and assorted immoralities; surely this has some bearing on his beliefs and actions as an adult.  At a minimum, it helps us to better understand the man and his motivations.

Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson was born in 1969 in San Francisco to Dick Carlson and Lisa McNear Lombardi.  Both parents led troubled lives.  Dick Carlson was born in Boston in 1941, to a 21-year-old male and a 15-year-old girl—a situation that today would qualify as statutory rape.  Ashamed of her pregnancy, the girl gave baby Dick up for adoption.  At the age of two, he was adopted by the Carlson family and took their name.  Moving to California in his 20s, Dick became a freelance journalist, eventually becoming involved in a libelous story against the mayor of San Francisco.  In the 1970s, Dick tried his hand at banking, but was soon involved in a political patronage scandal and accusations of dubious lending practices.[1]  In the 1980s, after a failed run for mayor of San Diego, he was appointed chief propagandist (though of course they didn’t call it that) at the Voice of America radio station, under Reagan.  In 1991, George H. W. Bush appointed him ambassador to Seychelles.  Today, at age 79, he has settled into a comfortable retirement.

As for Tucker’s mother, Lisa, she was evidently a very—shall we say—flaky person.  She married Dick in 1967, had Tucker in 1969 and then another boy in 1973, and then simply abandoned the family in 1975, when Tucker was six.  Only a very disturbed woman would up and leave her husband and two young children for no apparent reason.  Lisa’s whereabouts since that time remain a mystery.

Dick would eventually marry another troubled woman, Patricia Swanson, in 1979, when Tucker was 10 years old.  Fortuitously, Patricia was an heiress to the Swanson Foods fortune, built up in the 1930s and 1940s by her grandfather, Carl Swanson.  Her marriage to Dick was her third; at 18, she married a Jew, Howard Feldman, only to divorce a year later, and a second marriage ended in 1975.  At any rate, Dick at least “married into money,” attaining by current standards a modest fortune.  As they approach 80, both will soon be passing along a fair amount of money to Tucker.

In any case, Tucker led a privileged life from birth, despite his parental troubles.  He grew up in the wealthy community of La Jolla, California, and was schooled in Switzerland and at the prestigious Trinity College in Connecticut, eventually earning a degree in history.  Drawing on his father’s connections, he held various reporting and journalistic positions, eventually gaining his first television stint with CNN in 2000.  Tucker jumped to MSNBC in 2005, and finally to Fox in 2009.  In 2016, he was given his own program at that station.

Thus, by all accounts, Tucker is doing quite well for himself these days.  His show on Fox recently earned the highest ratings ever for a cable news show.  His salary is in the neighborhood of $6 million per year,[2] and his net worth is variously estimated at $20 million to $30 million.  At least his critiques of the wealthy corrupt of our country are well-sourced, given that he is a member of the very club that he loves to lambast.

The Tucker Model

Carlson seems to have been a life-long conservative, even during his tenures at CNN and MSNBC, where he played the conservative foil to the dominant liberal voices.  So we need not doubt his sincerity on that matter, at least.  But like all TV figures, he quickly learned how to “play the game” in order to get his share of airtime.  The primary rule: never question, challenge, or ‘out’ your bosses; always stick to the party line.  This of course is true pretty much everywhere, but in the news media, when your very job is to be an honest, diligent, and brave presenter of the truth, it seems particularly appalling to have to sacrifice basic morals—both personal and professional—simply to keep your job.  Yes, much of the blame goes to the corporate bosses, who demand ideological conformity from their news teams, but blame also goes to the individual TV figures who allow themselves to be used and corrupted for the money and fame (an old story, I know).

This is particularly troublesome for the dissident right, because there are many who view Carlson as a real voice for their concerns, and as a courageous defender of the truth.  But all too often, his real concern seems to be for himself and his fellow members of the wealthy elite, and his version of “the truth” leaves much to be desired.

Let’s start with what Carlson gets right.  Yes, the Democrats are appalling hypocrites and liars.  In the whole Covid crisis, Carlson has made much hay by exposing their double standards on things like mask-wearing, quarantine, haircuts, and salon visits.  Yes, they will say and do nearly anything to defeat Trump and win the White House, and perhaps even Congress.  Yes, Joe Biden is a near brain-dead dupe of party operatives, lacking in anything like personal principles or convictions.  Yes, Miss AOC—or now, “Sandy” Cortez, as Tucker prefers—carries an outsized liberal influence and indeed has many “radical” policies she wants to implement.  Yes, Democrats feign being environmentalists of the highest sort, and yet when in power they do little or nothing—witness the eight years of Clinton-Gore in the 1990s, or the eight Obama years.  Democrats also claim to “support our troops” but find it impossible to end our hopeless foreign wars and bring the troops home, or to dismantle our global network of imperial military outposts that costs taxpayers upwards of $500 billion a year.

It’s a similar story on the media side:  Yes, Tucker’s competing news celebrities at CNN and MSNBC are appalling hypocrites and liars.  He rightly calls out the blatant stupidity and ethical lapses of people like Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon.  CNN and MSNBC both are utterly predictable in which stories they present and which they don’t present, and Carlson has a field day with this.  These are the kinds of things that rightly earn him praise from the alt- and dissident right.

But let’s look a bit more closely at Tucker’s universe.  In his world, things are relatively black-and-white.  There are good things, and there are bad things.  The Tucker ‘goods’ include:  America, the American way of life, God (of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, of course), a second Trump presidency, capitalism, free trade, personal wealth, and unrestricted freedom of choice.  These things are standard goods for conservatives, both paleo and neo-con, but not necessarily for the dissident right.  Many in the DR see America as a failed state, as a disaster—at least in practice, if not also in theory.  Many would like to see our present corrupt nation vanish into oblivion.  Few in the DR are rich.  Many see Trump as an embarrassment or worse, hardly worth defending.  And many are at least skeptical, if not downright contemptuous, of the Judeo-Christian hoax and its ridiculous sky-god Jehovah.[3]

More troubling are the Tucker ‘bads,’ which include:  racism, anti-Semitism, White nationalism, Black Lives Matter, Antifa,[4] riots and anarchy in the streets, unwinnable foreign wars like Afghanistan, the 9/11 attacks (involving “the Saudis”), Chinese global aggression (especially vis a vis Russian aggression), and climate change “alarmism.”  Clearly and obviously for those in the DR, many of these things are in fact not bad, and some are unconditional goods.  Let’s go down the list in a bit of detail:

• Racism, Tucker loves to repeat, is a great evil. “All men are created equal,” after all, according to his beloved Declaration.  Both of these assertions are, of course, utter nonsense.  The proper, positive reading of ‘racism’ is (a) to think in racial terms about all aspects of human society, and (b) to have an appropriate self-pride in one’s own race.  Any sane and rational person would likely agree with this definition.  Science, genetics, anthropology, and sociology all testify to the overriding importance of race or ethnicity in accounting for human values and behavior.  And to not be proud of one’s own race is akin to hating one’s own family; normal, well-adjusted people have a positive self-image, and this applies to themselves, to their extended family, and to all those of their kind.  Consequently, there is no meaningful sense in which all humans are equal—not in interests, abilities, values, predispositions, inclinations…nothing.  If anything, humans are radically unequal.  “Equal before the law” is trivial, relatively meaningless, and functionally-speaking not even true.  “Equal under God” is sheer absurdity.  Human equality is a fiction.  Thus, any thinking, intelligent, and morally-intact person ought to be a ‘racist.’
• Likewise, any thinking White is necessarily anti-Semitic, meaning, they recognize Jews as the primary threat to their collective well-being and indeed to the well-being of all humanity. To be openly and proudly anti-Semitic is to take a stand against the gang of criminals—the “planetary master criminals,” in the words of Heidegger—that have been plundering Western civilization for some two millennia.[5]
• White nationalism and White interests are of course the raison d’être of White activism. Whenever the topic crosses Carlson’s lips, however, it morphs into ‘white supremacy’ or ‘neo-Nazism’ and is explicitly or implicitly condemned.  Whites never have valid interests as Whites, in his mind.
• Antifa and BLM are motley collections of confused, self-hating, opportunistic, vicious, and mindless individuals, of all races (including Jews). They are loosely organized, if at all.  Isolated hit-squads, perhaps assembled for pay, leap into action under their banners and make a big splash; but for the vast majority of Whites and the vast majority of American cities, they pose no real threat at all.  Yes, they are contemptible, as Carlson says.  Yes, they should be jailed, or worse.  But no, they pose no existential threat to the DR movement.  (Carlson’s main concern with them seems to be that they often target the wealthy, which hits too close to home for his comfort.)
• Likewise, Tucker hates riots and anarchy because they threaten the comfortable order of the economic elites. But let’s get this straight:  There are plenty of good reasons to be rioting in the streets—but George Floyd is not one of them.  If we’re going to have riots, let’s do it, for example, over the American Judeocracy that has destroyed any semblance of fairness and justice in our society.  Or over the $1 trillion spent every year in this country to maintain a global military hegemony, much of it on behalf of Jews and Israel.  Or over the obscene accumulation of wealth by American Jews, amounting to as much as $50 trillion (see here).  It’s not the rioting per se that is wrong; it’s the motivation behind it that matters.  But Carlson will have none of this.
• Both Iraq wars (1991 and 2003) and the war in Afghanistan were Jewish-instigated neo-con wars on behalf of Israel—period. They had nothing to do with American security.  To this day, there are still some 5,000 troops in Iraq and about 7,000 in Afghanistan, fighting “terrorists” who might someday threaten Jews in Israel.  This is an utter disgrace, and even a crime against humanity.  It must end now, as Tucker says—though he will never speak the truth about these conflicts.
• As for the 9/11 attacks, suffice to say that, once again, they seem to have been conducted on behalf Jewish and Israeli interests. To demonize the Saudis, as Carlson does, is to distract from the real issues at hand.
• Distraction, too, seems to be his motivation for a focus on Chinese aggression rather than Russian. As a widely-detested global hegemon, the US naturally faces continual threats on many fronts.  To pick out one or the other of these threats is to distract from the deeper issues involved.  The short solution here is:  stop being a hegemon, and you will have far fewer enemies.
• Carlson claims to be an environmentalist, but it’s clear that he qualifies only as one of the shallow and instrumentalist types. By contrast, many in the DR have legitimate concerns about climate change and would like see this nation move toward less fossil fuels, while expanding protections for wilderness and undeveloped rural areas.  Dare I add that the original dissident right, the National Socialists, placed great value on nature.  Once again, Carlson seems primarily concerned with the potential hit to his bottom line, and that of his fellow elites.

Tucker and the Jews

Finally we come to the black hole at the center of Carlson’s galaxy.  And a supermassive one it is, too.  Of that most influential, most wealthy, most corrupt, and most destructive of minorities, he offers us precisely nothing.  Jews are all but invisible on the Tucker Carlson Show.

Correction:  Jews qua Jews are invisible.  He has plenty of them on his show, but they are almost never identified as such (of course not—because that would be RACIST!).  Carlson’s regular Jews include Dr. Marc Siegel, Rick Leventhal, Mark Steyn (part-Jewish), and Dave Portnoy.  The past few weeks have included several other Jewish appearances, including Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson, Seth Barron, Lester Friedman, and Dov Hikind.  As on every news outlet, left, right, or center, Jews are massively over-represented.  This is not an accident.  For his part, Tucker seems more than happy to give the Jewish voice yet more airtime.

Yes, he condemns the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, and of Jeff Zucker and Michael Cohen, but again never as Jews.  Their Jewishness is, for him, utterly irrelevant.  Those of us who know better can see consistent patterns of behavior, clannish in-group defense, masterful lying, and an absolute lack of morality in these individuals.  This is not a coincidence.  We are dealing here with genetic, in-born traits that reach their highest and most ruthless fulfillment in such men.  Wherever Jews number more than a fraction of a percent of the population, there will be Weinsteins and Epsteins, Zuckers and Cohens.

A typical Carlson viewer, however, could be excused for thinking that such people as Jews didn’t even exist—unless it involves calling attention to anti-Semitism and Jewish victimhood.  Apart from that, the word ‘Jew’ is virtually never uttered.  Not even when it is most relevant; and not even when it involves the very people he loves to criticize the most.  Consider the highly relevant and surely uncoincidental relationships between Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Jews.  Take Biden, who has long had a cozy relationship with Jews, dating back at least to his fond memories of meeting Golda Meir in 1973.  In early 2007, he famously stated that “I am a Zionist,” adding “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist” (true enough).[6]  This certainly helped his political future, considering that the Judeophile and Judenknecht Obama soon thereafter chose him as his running mate.

But what secured Biden’s support among the American Judeocracy was surely his family connections.  Joe had three children by his first wife: Beau, Hunter, and Naomi.  The wife and one-year-old Naomi were killed in a car crash in 1972, but the two boys lived to adulthood (Beau died of brain cancer in 2015).  Joe then had a fourth child, Ashley, by his second and current wife, Jill.  Ashley married a Jewish doctor, Howard Krein, in 2012.  Beau married a Jewish dry-cleaning scion, Hallie Olivere, in 2002; they had two children before he died in 2015.  After his death, Olivere (now Hallie Biden) shamelessly began an affair with the alcoholic and married younger son, Hunter—he of the Ukrainian Burisma scandal fame.  Hunter then divorced his first wife (Kathleen) to take up fulltime with the Jewess Hallie, but that relationship fell apart in 2018.  After getting a stripper pregnant, Hunter then took up with another Jewess, “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen.  They married in 2019 and had a boy in 2020.

Bottom line:  All three of Biden’s adult children married Jews, and he has at least three Jewish grandchildren.  This is remarkable, and surely not accidental.  Jews flock to power, and those in power, at least the most depraved and corrupt ones, are only too happy to cement their Jewish family connections.  The same holds, as we know, for the Clintons, Trump, and Nancy Pelosi, among many others.[7]

For her part, Kamala Harris married the Jew Doug Emhoff in 2014.  As the offspring of an Indian mother and a Black Jamaican father, and now married to a Jew, Harris is a poster child for the degenerate racial mixing that passes for normality in liberal-Democratic circles these days.  We can see why they praised her selection for VP.

But rest assured, you won’t be confronted with any of these ugly facts on the Tucker Carlson Show.  No sir!  Because that would be RACIST!

Perhaps the biggest Jewish problem, from Carlson’s standpoint, is the possible (likely?) Jewishness of his Fox corporate owners, the Murdoch family.  The family patriarch, Rupert, now 89, has managed to obscure details of his family background.  His mother, the former Elisabeth Greene (1909-2012), is claimed by some to have been Jewish.  Journalist Richard Curtiss stated as much in 2003 (see here).  There is a weird, possibly-doctored photo showing her looking quite chummy with an Australian rabbi (ibid.).  And Rupert’s sister, Anne, apparently married a Jew named Kantor.  Suggestive, but far from definitive.

But what is not in dispute is that the Murdoch empire has been relentlessly pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, and pro-Zionist for decades.  Whether for personal, religious, or commercial reasons, the Murdochs have found it in their interest to sidle up to the Jews.  This stance unquestionably works its way down the entire Fox media network, and thus we are unsurprised that the anchors avoid the whole topic whenever possible.  The Jewish Question is, as always, That Which Shall Not Be Spoken.[8]

It is particularly frustrating, though, when folks like Carlson actually provide cover and defense for the Jews.  On many occasions, for example, he has stated or implied that Jews are White—that they benefit from “White privilege” or that they are targeted “because they are White.”  Let me make this as clear as possible:  Jews are not White—not in any relevant sense.  Jews are White like Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal are Black; that is, only to the extent that it serves their interests to deceive.  Yes, Jews’ skin tone matches ours, but that is merely an unfortunate and superficial fact of biology.  To further obscure the issue, they use plastic surgery to hide the nose and to minimize the uniquely repulsive effects of Jewish aging.  This allows them to circulate in White society unnoticed.  But they are not White.  Neither are Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, nor any other light-skinned Arabs or Middle Easterners.  ‘White’ refers only to the indigenous people of Europe, Ukraine, and Western Russia.  Jews are not White.

But Carlson seems unable to comprehend this fact, and thus he continues to perpetuate the “Jews are White” myth.  Apparently he is unwilling or unable to grasp the alternative, namely, that Jews are a distinct ethnicity with distinct genetics, and therefore with distinct skills, abilities, values, and group interests—many of which directly conflict with those of Whites.

His sins against Whites are compounded by the fact that he himself is White.  This situation is particularly galling to me and many in the DR.  We can at least understand the patent self-interest when Jewish anchors like Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow (half), Chuck Todd, Ari Melber, Mark Levin, and John Berman offer us biased reporting or lies of omission that benefit Jews.  But for Whites and other non-Jews to do the same is disgraceful.  Carlson, at least, manages to salvage some dignity in his willingness to openly criticize Jews, even if without naming them as such.  But for left-leaning White broadcasters like Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and Chris Hayes to provide active cover and defense for Jews is utterly appalling.  They are among the leading and most damaging race-traitors in the mainstream media.  For them, no punishment can be too severe.

Despite all this, Carlson has a path to salvation.  Tucker, here it is:  Pick a random night in the not too distant future, and go off script, live, and tell the truth about the Jews.  You’re smart, you know the truth, just say it.  When the inevitable firing comes, take it like a man.  With $30 million in the bank, you’ve got more than enough for yourself, your kids, and your grandkids.  Then use your money and fame to become a real advocate for the truth.  Speak out against the Jewish monopolization of our power structure, and against Jewish malfeasance at all levels of society.

They say you might even run for president in 2024.  Imagine the commitment and support you would gain by speaking the truth.  But do it now.  There isn’t a moment to lose.  We’ll be waiting.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com

[1] Dick Carlson ended up being interviewed by Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes, as part of the larger scandal.

[2] Significantly less than his competitor, Anderson Cooper at CNN, who earns around $12 million per year.

[3] Nietzsche’s account of Christianity is particularly appropriate on this count; see here.

[4] Both the term and the ideology have long roots, having been founded in Germany in the early 1930s.  Only in the past four or five years has the concept assumed prominence in the US.

[5] For more on Heidegger, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020).

[6] On this and other related statements, see here.

[7] One wonders what the children of these power-elites are thinking.  What sane person would willingly marry into the lowest and most despicable minority on Earth?  And then have children with them?  Were they bribed?  Coerced?  Brainwashed?  The topic is surely worthy of a book-length treatment in itself.

[8] I’m tempted to call it “the elephant in the room,” but that would be an insult to elephants, so I won’t.

Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators
Ronan Farrow
Fleet paperback 2020

Ideas always sound classier in French: Lisez le blanc, lisez ce que je n’ai pas écrit et ce qui y est pourtant – “Read the white, read what I did not write and what is there nonetheless.” That was the eighteenth-century Italian economist Ferdinando Galiani (1728–87) urging a French correspondent to read one of his books with greater care. Galiani couldn’t express himself openly or he would have made dangerous enemies in the church and aristocracy.

Unorthodox thoughts

And so he concealed his true opinions from hostile eyes,  trusting that an intellectual elite in his audience would nevertheless know how to “read the white” and discern his true meaning. I came across that quote by Galiani in a fascinating compilation made by the probably Jewish political scientist Arthur M. Melzer to accompany his book Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing (2014). Melzer is a Straussian and says that Galiani, like Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Machiavelli and a host of other influential figures, was an adherent of “philosophical esotericism,” the practice of “communicating one’s unorthodox thoughts ‘between the lines’.” After all, as Tacitus (c.55–c.117) himself said: “Seldom are men blessed with times when they may think what they please and say what they think.”

Many centuries after Tacitus, Westerners are definitely not blessed with times to speak freely. Jonathan Sacks, then the Chief Rabbi of Britain, pointed out in 2007 that Western politics had been “poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.” Sacks next said something that would have got him into serious trouble if he hadn’t been Jewish himself: “The process … began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.” Sacks was right: the process did begin with Jews. And it’s continued with Jews, as they use their verbal fluency, psychological intensity and massive over-representation in the media and law to intensify what I call minority worship, or the treatment of minorities like Jews and Blacks as the saintly victims of White oppression.

Clear patterns of Jewish misbehaviour

For example, the anti-White hysteria and criminality of the Black Lives Matter movement have clear Jewish connections. And so do lots of other pathologies, from vulture capitalism to the flooding of Western nations with hostile, corrupt and low-IQ Third-Worlders. But it’s dangerous to refer even obliquely to the central Jewish role in these pathologies. Or it’s “verboten,” as Newt Gingrich put it when he was rebuked on Fox News for identifying “George Soros-elected, left-wing, anti-police pro-criminal district attorneys” as enablers of the BLM riots that have racked America during the “Summer of George.” Yes, the pro-criminal attorneys are indeed elected with money from the Jewish billionaire Soros, but you can’t say so, because it’s “anti-Semitic” to link a Jew with political subversion and the misuse of wealth. In other words: “Reality shmeality, so shut your truth-telling traps, goyim!”

These taboos on discussing clear patterns of Jewish misbehaviour in Western politics and culture mean that lots of mainstream writers are staying quiet, despite seeing perfectly well what is going on. But I also wonder whether some mainstream writers are resurrecting philosophical esotericism, the “writing between the lines” that Arthur Melzer defines as relying “not on secret codes, but simply on a more intensive use of familiar rhetorical techniques like metaphor, irony, and insinuation.” I think Ronan Farrow (born 1987), the journalist who exposed the Jewish sex-criminal Harvey Weinstein, may well have used esotericism in his book on the Weinstein scandal, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators (first published in 2019). As I described in my own article “Lies, Spies and Harvey Weinstein” (published in 2017, some time before Farrow used the same rhyming words), the Weinstein scandal is a clear example of Jewish predation on gentile victims. Weinstein behaved like the Jewish “movie magnate” Jack Woltz in Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather (1969). Woltz was “rough-spoken, rapaciously amorous, a raging wolf ravaging helpless flocks of young starlets.”

Two Jewish predators: Philip Green and Harvey Weinstein

That was in the 1930s and ’40s, according to Puzo’s book. By the 1950s, Woltz had become a paedophile, “aroused now only by very young girls” and raping twelve-year-old shiksas on his private plane. But Puzo didn’t explicitly identify Woltz as Jewish or describe his behaviour as inter-ethnic sexual predation. That was “verboten.” And it’s “verboten” today for Ronan Farrow to write openly that Weinstein was continuing the same Jewish-on-gentile sexual predation that Mario Puzo saw all those decades ago.

“Something good for Israel”

But Farrow could write esoterically. And what do you find on the first page of the first chapter of his book about the Weinstein scandal? You find a journalist called Rich McHugh and his inability to use the Yiddish word “fakakta” right (“fakakta,” or verkakte, means “shitty” or “crappy”). On the next page you learn that Rich McHugh “was barrel-chested, with ginger hair and a ruddy complexion, and wore a lot of gingham work-shirts.” He “looks like a farmer.” (p. 4) In short, he’s a goy! And I think Farrow was using McHugh and his difficulties with Yiddish to represent gentiles and their failure to understand the true “Yiddish” nature of the Weinstein scandal. Like Woltz in The Godfather, Weinstein was a Jewish wolf preying on shiksa starlets. When the hounds of goyish law were on his trail, Weinstein called on the help of Jewish foxes at an Israeli spy-agency called Black Cube. And it was the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak who brought Weinstein and Black Cube together. (p. 12)

And here’s what one Black Cube agent says to another agent of his highly unethical work for Weinstein: “To me, this is like doing a mitzvah. I’m doing something good for Israel.” (pp. 331-2) In that context, a mitzvah means “a divinely approved deed for a fellow Jew or to serve Jewish interests.” And presumably the Guardian journalist Seth Freedman, also working for Black Cube and Weinstein, thought he was performing a mitzvah and doing good for Israel. Freedman had been a “London stockbroker, then moved to Israel and served in the Israel Defence Forces – IDF – for fifteen months in the 2000s.” (p. 310) Then he began working for the fiercely feminist and anti-rape Guardian. This didn’t stop Freedman spying on female victims of the Jewish rapist Harvey Weinstein and trying to help Weinstein evade justice.h

“I am his people”

The feminist credentials of the Jewish lawyer Lisa Bloom didn’t stop her working for Weinstein either. Ronan Farrow had trusted Bloom and “expressed astonishment” that she had betrayed his confidences to Weinstein’s “people.” Bloom replied: “I am his people.” (p. 237) The reply can be read in two ways, of course. Bloom was one of Weinstein’s employees, but she was also one of Weinstein’s  ethnic group. Bloom might not have consciously meant to convey both meanings, but Farrow’s reporting of her words fits a pattern of “metaphor, irony, and insinuation” in his book. As we’ve already seen, Catch and Kill begins with a ruddy-faced goy who “looks like a farmer” and gets the Yiddish word “fakakta” wrong. Farrow uses the same word for the title of the first chapter of Part III, called “Army of Spies.” The goy Rich McHugh is back in that chapter, again getting the word wrong. Farrow tells him: “Please, Rich, no more Yiddish.” (p. 199) The full goy McHugh doesn’t get it, you see, but the Jew-wise Ronan Farrow does.

Or so I would claim. I think Farrow gets the Jewish nature of the Weinstein scandal – the sexual predation, the Jewish spying and the Jewish solidarity – and wants his readers to “read the white, read what I did not write and what is there nonetheless.” After all, Farrow is Jew-wise because his mother is the shiksa actress Mia Farrow (born 1945) and his legal father is the Jewish director Woody Allen (born 1935) (but his possible biological father was Frank Sinatra). Straight after reporting that Rich McHugh “looks like a farmer,” Farrow wrote about his father being “accused of sexual assault by my seven-year-old sister, Dylan,” and beginning “a sexual relationship with another of my sisters, Soon-Yi, eventually marrying her.” (p. 4) In chapter 5, Farrow describes how his father reacted à la Weinstein to the accusations of abuse: “Allen hired what his lawyer estimated to be ten or more private detectives through a network of attorneys and subcontractors. They trailed law enforcement officials, looking for evidence of drinking or gambling problems.” (pp. 32–3)

Singularly Semitic Scandals

Farrow sided with his sister and mother against his Jewish father: “so much of [Mia Farrow’s] talent and reputation was consumed by the men in her life.” (p. 32) And having seen one devious and unrepentant predator at work, he was ready to help when the actress Rose McGowan told him about being raped by another devious and unrepentant predator, Harvey Weinstein. (pp. 30-5) But does Farrow see Jewishness as central to the sexual predation of Allen, Weinstein and the media superstar Matt Lauer, also discussed here? I think he does, and I think Catch and Kill is “communicating unorthodox thoughts ‘between the lines’.”

The unorthodox thoughts are that Jews like Harvey Weinstein are predators on naïve and trusting gentiles. And that Jewish organizations like Black Cube conspire in Jewish solidarity to keep Jewish predators from justice. To repeat the words of that Black Cube agent, as reported by Farrow: “To me, this is like doing a mitzvah. I’m doing something good for Israel.”

It was “verboten” for Ronan Farrow to express those anti-Jewish thoughts openly, but I think he decided to express them esoterically in Catch and Kill. The dumb goy who opens the book misusing Yiddish is a proxy for the dumb goyim who gaped at Weinstein’s crimes, but failed to understand what was really going on. Like Avital Ronell’s abuse of academic power and Jeremy Newmark’s financial fraud, Harvey Weinstein’s sex-crimes were a singularly Semitic scandal.