Having a career in the big media is like having a career in big politics. Politics is the art of the possible. Compromises are inevitable. And so it is in the media, where I suppose even many leftists have to suppress their real anti-White hatreds—Joy Reid and Don Lemon come to mind—in order to appeal to their audience and the network higher-ups; for the left, their only sin is to go too far too fast. It would be great if a media figure could talk explicitly about White identity and interests. And it would be terrific if there were honest discussions on the major networks of the ethnic composition of American elites and what their interests and attitudes are. But if you did, you’d be fired.

So Tucker Carlson doesn’t talk about such things, and he is drawing the biggest audience in cable TV history. So is he doing something valuable for our side? I think so. There is a whole lot of implicit Whiteness in his shows, and even though he doesn’t talk about Jewish identity and interests, it’s sometimes there by implication.

For example, he often shows egregious examples of Black-on-White crime, such as the execution-style killing of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant by a Black man in Georgia, an event that drew yawns from the left; or the gratuitous “knock-out” games where Blacks sucker-punch unsuspecting Whites; or Blacks looting stores during the riots. A frequent guest is Heather MacDonald disposing of the myth that there is an epidemic of White racist cops attacking unarmed, innocent Black people. Recently he noted that in every one of the recent cases, from George Flood to Jacob Blake to Breonna Taylor the police acted reasonably given the circumstances. And he presented a vigorous defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, showing via video that he acted in self-defense.

Segments that illustrate White people being killed by hateful Blacks are exactly the sort of thing that make White people more conscious of being White and more fearful of a future as a White minority. The same goes for his segment on Sarch Jeong’s anti-White rants and how this did not prevent her from having a job at the New York Times.

Recently Tucker featured Christopher Rufo who is an activist against Critical Race Theory which is so common in the educational system and in training sessions for businesses and government workers. Critical Race Theory propaganda, as expounded by the likes of Robin Diangelo, is nothing more than an attempt to make Whites feel guilty for being White and to accept that all Whites are evil racists who must constantly work to overcome their evil. Shortly after the segment, Trump issued an executive order banning such propaganda in government agencies; and now Rufo says it’s been banned from major defense contractors like Raytheon.

He also brought on Heather MacDonald to discuss racial preferences in college admission—another issue that resonates with Whites because it feeds into the idea that anti-White discrimination is rampant in universities and businesses.

And on another segment, Heather M referred to “behavioral differences” that are being ignored by the left when they talk about Black dysfunction and underachievement. They didn’t channel Phil Rushton or Richard Lynn, but the implication was obvious.

Tucker had an exposé of the man he calls “the famously vicious Paul Singer,” who runs a hedge fund responsible for gutting a small town in Nebraska. Singer is Jewish neocon who is a major GOP donor. For people with any knowledge of how our system works—a substantial part of his audience, this is clearly dog whistling. The hedge fund industry is a Jewish industry, and predatory business practices by Jews are a theme of anti-Jewish attitudes for centuries.

And speaking of dog whistles, Tucker has mentioned George Soros by name—an unpardonably anti-Semitic act according to the activists. (Twitter labeled the segment “sensitive content” to discourage viewing.) Newsweek:

[Soros] has become a totemic boogeyman figure for the right, a focus of consternation, anger, and often anti-Semitic hate, accused of buying power and influence, and undermining democracy.

“For many years, leftist billionaire George Soros has used his wealth to remake our society, American society,” Carlson said during his show. “His latest area of focus is criminal justice. From Texas to Philadelphia [and] the state of Virginia, Soros has reportedly spent millions of dollars backing candidates for District Attorney, for prosecutor. Once elected, these candidates…have ended cash bail, treated felonies like misdemeanors, and sometimes ignored some crimes entirely.”

Here Tucker interviews Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) on censorship by Google and other Big Tech companies but also emphasizes the person-who-must-not-be-named’s role in funding the campaigns of leftist prosecutors who let off rioters who destroy property and attack police officers while going to the wall on people, like the McCloskeys, the St. Louis couple who were arrested and charged for trying to defend their property. Tucker: “I can’t think of any rich person who has had a greater effect on how Americans live and how American society works in my lifetime than George Soros, and yet news organizations have been bullied into not mentioning that.”

Tucker concluded the segment by explaining it as “because somehow billionaires get a pass”—a bit disingenuous, since it’s clearly because Soros is Jewish that he is not supposed to be mentioned, and he knows it. Jewish activists were outraged when Victor Orban used Soros as a whipping boy (e.g., “European institutions do not serve the interests of the citizens of Europe, but rather those of prominent billionaire disrupter George Soros”). Again, it’s because they were afraid of an anti-Jewish reaction when people became aware that Soros is trying to fundamentally change their country. And presumably there is similar pressure going on behind the scenes in the U.S., including at Fox, where Newt Gingrich was censored for uttering Soros’s name (“Things got extremely awkward on Fox News panel show Outnumbered on Wednesday after former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tied billionaire financier George Soros—often the focus of anti-Semitic tropes—to violence in cities”). And, although he doesn’t talk about the very large role of the ADL in promoting censorship, he has often had segments blaming Google, Twitter, and the rest for buckling under this pressure, although they are likely willing accomplices considering the large Jewish ownership of social media (Google, Facebook) and the fact that Silicon Valley in general is decidedly on the left.

But Singer and Soros are just two member of our predatory elite whose actions have devastated the working class by exporting their jobs and destroying the social props for the family that were embedded in traditional Western culture—a recurrent theme for Tucker. Tucker has had a great deal on the decline of the family and the importance of fathers, and on the opioid crisis, all of which are clearly linked to the decline of the culture in general. And he named the Sacklers as the main villain, but perhaps softening the Jewish angle by interviewing a Jewish author on the subject. (Trigger warning: Not all Jews are bad guys.)

Immigration is the most critical issue facing the West. Carlson lost advertisers when he said that immigration results in an America that is “poorer and dirtier and more divided.”

The “Tucker Carlson Tonight” host, in one of his regular rallying cries against immigration, called out “previous leaders” who “demand that you shut up and accept” immigrants.

“We have a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor, they tell us, even if it makes our own country poorer, and dirtier, and more divided,” Carlson said on his show.

“Immigration is a form of atonement,” he added. “Previous leaders of our country committed sins ― we must pay for those sins by welcoming an endless chain of migrant caravans. That’s the argument they make.”

Carlson last week ranted about immigrants replacing Americans, and called out President Donald Trump in a magazine interview for failing to keep promises to voters ― including construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. (here)

Notice that, unlike so many conservatives, he did not restrict his comments to illegal immigration. And again, for those able to hear the dog whistles, his comment that “Previous leaders of our country committed sins ― we must pay for those sins by welcoming an endless chain of migrant caravans” clearly refers to Jews who have a massive chip on their shoulder about the 1924 immigration law which they see as directed against Jews and resulted in Jews not being able to immigrate from Europe—essentially blaming the U.S. for the deaths of European Jews in World War II. Every time there is a danger of immigration or refugee restriction getting traction, the mainstream media—and especially the Jewish media—are rife with stories about how Jews suffered because of the 1924 immigration law. As usual, Jews see everything from the standpoint of their lachrymose version of Jewish history and they blame evil White people: If White people stood up once and demanded a country with a solid European-derived majority, it could happen again, and their perception is that that would not be good for the Jews. The legitimate interests of other Americans are irrelevant at best and evil at worst.

Carlson often points out that the American elite is predominantly on the left and that they oppose the interests of the working class and the country as a whole. He has had many shows on the degeneration of California as managed by leftist elites, resulting in the disappearance of the middle class and resulting in a society of the unimaginably rich ruling over poor, illiterate masses—what I suspect is the dystopian future that our post-1960 elite wants. He recently made a comment to the effect that these elites are funding and promoting the rioting to distract the country from the effects of the policies they have promoted. And he repeatedly calls out the hypocrisy of elites because they are able to avoid the effects of the policies they so strenuously advocate—leftist politicians who want to take away guns while insisting on having well-armed body guards. Wealthy liberals getting their not-very-smart kids into good colleges while hating populism. Leftist politicians and donors who live far away from the neighborhoods they have helped to destroy—most recently Michael Novogratz, a billionaire who funds the Bail Project responsible for releasing many of the rioters who are destroying so many cities, as well as violent felons who have gone on to commit more crimes.

[Novogratz] gave a big donation to a DA candidate in Queens called Tiffany Caban. Novogratz doesn’t live in Queens. He has homes in the safest neighborhoods in America, of course. He could afford to support Caban because he doesn’t have to live with the consequences of her ideas.

Caban ran on decriminalizing drug use and prostitution and other, quote, “crimes of poverty,” as if poverty forces people to commit crime. What a patronizing absurdity that is. But all of this is fine with Michael Novogratz. There are never going to be pimps and junkies outside his family’s house. He gets to pose as a progressive activist by doing this.

And critically — this is the point — by funding The Bail Project and groups like it, he and progressives like him, buy immunity from the obvious questions that actual journalists might ask them otherwise. Questions like, how exactly did you make billions of dollars? And how precisely do hedge funds and cryptocurrency trading make this a better country? Those are the real questions. No one ever asked them.

In this video on homelessness, Carlson complains that government should do better to make home ownership available to working-class Americans rather than “selling the country to Chinese investors and prioritizing the returns of real estate speculators.” Definitely a populist message. And, as Media Matters says, he “used a conveniently vulnerable population as a bludgeon against Democrats, urban areas, and the ‘coastal elites.’” “Coastal elites. There’s that dog whistle again, without any mention of the J-word.

And then there’s Russia, the focus of neocon and, since the 2016 election, Democrat hysteria. A writer at Vanity Fair states it this way:

With the fervor he normally reserves for misogynistic for racist screeds, Tucker Carlson has taken up a new cause: defending Russia from the libs. “[Vladimir Putin,] for all his faults, does not hate America as much as many of these people do,” Carlson said on his show Monday night, referring to members of the media who’ve criticized Republicans for cozying up to Moscow. “They really dislike our country. And they call other people traitors?”

This seems to be a new pet line for Carlson, who said last week that he’s cheering for Russia in its conflict with Ukraine—the U.S. ally Trump attempted to extort to gin up an investigation into Joe Biden. “Why do I care what’s going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia?” he asked during a panel discussion. “And I’m serious—like, why do I care? And why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.”

Tucker, like Trump’s rhetoric in the 2016 election (although he hasn’t been able to follow through on it [presidents aren’t all-powerful] because of intense opposition by the deep state national security folks), has been a strong supporter of removing US troops from the Middle East, and of course Russia has made an alliance with Israel’s archenemy, Iran, and has gone to bat for Syria. This is a huge problem for neocons and pretty much the rest of the U.S. foreign policy establishment intent on forever wars (on behalf of you-know-who]. Recently he claimed that Biden-Harris would “plan a new war” in Syria if elected.

Too many thousands of American servicemen are deployed in dozens of countries around the world and have been for generations. In some cases, there may be a good reason they are there. In many other cases though, we just don’t talk about it. You’re not allowed to. In Washington, mindless interventionism is very much a bipartisan project. Both parties support it. … [Trump] has been talking relentlessly about bringing the troops home from countries around the world and maybe more than any other single reason, talk like that makes official Washington hate Donald Trump.

Tucker stays clear of criticizing Israel but he avoids hyping things like the recent peace treaty between Israel and Bahrain or the embassy move to Jerusalem—unmentioned as far as I know—but popular with many mainstream conservatives. Not much doubt in my mind that Tucker understands that these wars are promoted by the Israel Lobby and that they are not in American interests. Since so many conservatives (e.g., Hannity) are slaves of the Israel Lobby, this is important to get across to his listeners.

So yes, I think that overall Tucker Carlson is an asset to our side. I think that he wants an America with a large White majority, but an America that is fair to the historic Black population. And he likely believes that fundamentally America is fair to its Black population and has been for decades, so he is unwilling to excuse so much of Black behavior, often having on intelligent, solidly middle-class conservative Blacks like Larry Elder as spokespeople condemning the behavior of so many Blacks and the BLM activists, and condemning the Democrats for fostering Black pathology (which they have, ever since revamping the welfare system in the 1960s, leading to a catastrophic decline in all the markers of family stability, especially for Blacks). To be sure, he does this without talking about IQ or impulsivity. But he is making the White population more conscious of being White and making it painfully obvious what happens to White people and their property when the left runs things—Portland being Exhibit A. I strongly suspect that he understands that Jews are a dominant elite and are ultimately behind the biggest problems Americans face—any who is as involved in politics as Tucker is as close to the action as he is has got to know. But let’s face it, there are a lot of non-Jews, such as Novogratz, among American elites who are going along with the program. Simply talking about our traitorous hostile elites is a major service.

Tucker paints a dark picture of America’s future if the left regains power—Obama would be nothing compared to what they want. And as a result, even though he has criticized Trump at various times, he, like many (myself included) think this is an Armageddon-like election that would usher in a full-blown anti-White government that would pack the Supreme Court (“Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate”), get rid of the First and Second Amendments, the Electoral College, and two senators per state—and inaugurate a permanent government of the left. And that’s just for starters. The hope is that in the future there will be someone (like Tucker?) who could win the presidency and really start the process of rolling back the last 60 years.

A few weeks ago, the Black magazine Essence published an article titled, “A Group Of Black Women Discuss What It’s Like To Shop For Makeup At The Drugstore.” As a very pale White woman, I have always struggled to find makeup that matches my complexion — drugstore or high-end. Makeup artists have jokingly suggested Wite-Out to me multiple times when I have asked for concealer recommendations. I was curious to hear if my experiences were similar to those of the women Essence spoke to.

For those who don’t know, foundation and concealer are powder or liquid makeup products used to create an even, flawless base that matches the user’s skin.

 

In the article’s video, “Black-Girl Approved: Foundations,” four female Essence staffers sample a table full of foundations to find their perfect match. They rule out options that are too light or too dark. Essence claims “drugstore makeup brands typically fall short of meeting the basic needs of Black beauty consumers: a true match foundation that doesn’t skim [sic] on quality. . . . The shade range is vexingly shallow.”

If it weren’t for that, this video would be a generic product review based on the needs of a certain consumer group. However, no equivalent content or consumer efforts exist for very fair women. Even though foundation reviews for “fair,” “pale,” or “very fair” skin tones exist on platforms such as YouTube, no major publication references the miniscule pale shade range commonly available at drugstores as “vexingly shallow.”

A search for makeup inclusivity regarding pale skin shows a 2017 story picked up by several mainstream outlets — Allure, Teen Vogue, and Glamour Magazine among them — which celebrated Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty products for including such a wide range of foundation shade that an albino woman tweeted that she was able to find a match for her skin. Would every major beauty publication have picked up the story if a really pale woman without a genetic condition had successfully found a foundation? So far, the answer is “no.”

 

Moreover, the albino woman reports on her personal Instagram page that she is, in fact, Black. So even reviews of light shades of makeup are about non-Whites.

The Essence article claims “that in 2020, there is still work to do to make the beauty community a place that is inclusive of all,” but she means retailers should listen to the concerns of “people of color” only.

• , by Tynan Sinks, Allure, November 10, 2018
• 10 Foundations that make women of color a priority, by Eden Mogese, The Everygirl, February 28, 2018
• Makeup Industry Veteran Discusses Why The Beauty Industry Continues To Fail Women Of Color, by Janice Gassam Asare, Forbes, March 12, 2020
• Discrimination at the Makeup Counter, by Karim Organe, HuffPost, November 12, 2011

These types of articles declare that makeup users of color are not merely inconvenienced but truly discriminated against and victimized in a way that White consumers are not. Despite clear evidence that shade matching is challenging across the skin tone spectrum, retailers and consumers alike are being told to believe that Black women are uniquely suffering because of phantom evils — unconscious bias and systemic racism.

If this were true, then I would be able to walk into any drugstore and consistently find an appropriate shade of foundation for my alabaster skin — something I have never been able to do in my entire life. Women of color seem to have the upper hand because fashion and beauty writers lobby, guilt, and shame retailers on their behalf.