“I’m staying. I’m all in… Lets go win!” – Heritage President Kevin Roberts
Heritage Staffer at Town Hall: “The issue here is Tucker Carlson … Tucker’s show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum.”
The fallout from The Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts pledging loyalty to Tucker Carlson on the heels of the softball interview with neo-Nazi Groyper leader Nick Fuentes continues to reverberate both inside and outside the organization.
Prior Coverage:
- Heritage Foundation Soils Itself, Embraces Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes
- Heritage Trustee: “I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have ‘no enemies to the right’”
- Ben Shapiro: Tucker Carlson is the “main agent” in “normalizing Nazism within the Republican Party”
Loyalty to Tucker may not bring down The Heritage Foundation, but it’s eating away at it from the inside. He’s a total chaos agent dragging down not only Heritage, but putting JD Vance is a really difficult position. Vance issued a lame statement without mentioning Tucker:
I think it’s idiotic to overreact to a couple of elections in blue states, but a few thoughts: ***
3) The infighting is stupid. I care about my fellow citizens–particularly young Americans–being able to afford a decent life, I care about immigration and our sovereignty, and I care about establishing peace overseas so our resources can be focused at home. If you care about those things too, let’s work together.
This is not leadership @JDVance. You know who the issue is. You've been avoiding the @TuckerCarlson problem for months but it's now front and center. We are entitled to transparency. https://t.co/t9tmBFMYex pic.twitter.com/1AW6Cp2XrV
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) November 5, 2025
Tucker’s attack during the Fuentes interview on Christian Zionists, claiming they were heretics who he hated more than anyone, also set off an intra-Christian fight inside Heritage. I don’t claim any knowledge of Christian theology so I didn’t quite understand what Tucker was getting at and how volatile the accusation was, but at Heritage some people understood:
I knew @TuckerCarlson had devoted himself to turning Christians against Jews, I didn't realize his "heresy" comment would set Christians against Christians (I bet he knew). Heritage staffer: "we are Catholic and Orthodox and believe that Christian Zionism is a modern heresy."… https://t.co/H2bWtDK1BH
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) November 5, 2025
A video from the Heritage Town Hall was leaked. I’m not sure which outlet got it first, but The Free Beacon posted it, and many others have posted clips.
“I made a mistake and I let you down and I let down this institution. Period. Full Stop,” Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts told the staff of the conservative think tank on Wednesday, a week after he posted a video decrying a “venomous” coalition attacking the right-wing podcast host Tucker Carlson—and declaring the Heritage Foundation would always defend him against “the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda.”
Roberts said he was willing to resign but felt a “moral obligation” to repair the situation and had told the organization’s board of directors: “I made the mess, let me clean it up.”
While Roberts stated unequivocally in his original video that the Heritage Foundation would never cancel “our friends,” he said Wednesday he should have made clear there was a “limiting principle.”
“You can say you’re not going to participate in canceling someone … while also being clear you’re not endorsing everything they’ve said, you’re not endorsing softball interviews, you’re not endorsing putting people on shows, and I should’ve made that clear.”…
Roberts used his remarks to explain how the video came to be posted. “This is an explanation, not an excuse,” he said, telling staffers that the think tank was under pressure to “make a statement” that Carlson was “no longer part of the conservative movement.”
I think it’s unseemly to leak such a thing, but it happened and it’s all over the news, so we can’t ignore it. Here are some clips that have circulated:
President of the Heritage Foundation, @KevinRobertsTX, on last week’s viral video responding to the Tucker Carlson/Fuentes interview:
“When the script was presented to me, I understood from our former colleague (@RyanMNeuhaus) that it was approved – it was signed off on.”… pic.twitter.com/CBAn56nBHY
— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) November 6, 2025
In leaked footage from @Heritage’s recent meeting, @KevinRobertsTX admits he “made the mistake of conflating” his “personal friendship with Tucker” with the Heritage Foundation when he said they would “always support” him in last week's video.
Roberts even said personally on… pic.twitter.com/rDvZRNPqPX
— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) November 5, 2025
One of the staffers gave an impassioned critique of Tucker for promoting and sanitizing not only Fuentes but other Nazi apologists:
“We do cancel … Because if they’re in your movement, you look like clowns. The issue here is Tucker Carlson … Tucker’s show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum.”
NEW: Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector has a meltdown on Heritage President Kevin Roberts for his video defending Tucker Carlson.
Rector said that conservatives *do* need to 'cancel' certain voices on the right as he raged against Carlson.
Rector compared Carlson to David… pic.twitter.com/0UE4cJjgIq
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 5, 2025
But the most important one, perhaps is this one reposted by Roberts himself. It’s of Mike Gonzalez – not sure what his title is but I know he’s done very good work opposing CRT. Gonzalez defended Roberts, and Roberts posted on X:
“I love you brother. I took your advice, went back to my office, and thought about it. I’m staying. I’m all in. I’m here for you. I’m here for the team. Lets go win!”
.@Gundisalvus, I love you brother. I took your advice, went back to my office, and thought about it.
I'm staying. I'm all in.
I'm here for you. I'm here for the team. Lets go win! https://t.co/lCCWMhCF0E
— Kevin Roberts (@KevinRobertsTX) November 5, 2025
I don’t know if that will work. Roberts’ duty is to the organization and more broadly to the conservative movement, but he put personal loyalty to Tucker ahead of that.
I don’t understand the grip Tucker has on people. Are they afraid of him? Megyn Kelly has made clear that because of her friendship with Tucker she will not jettison him (I’m not even sure if she has criticized him at all), and she joined in the ridiculous online claims that people who objected to Fuentes distracted from election efforts for Republicans.
This this this this this this this this THIS. https://t.co/eDDn1D24tl
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) November 5, 2025
Then why didn't you have the guts to speak out about your two big podcaster friends who have spent the past several months, but particularly since Charlie's murder, in a non-stop attack on Israel and Jews instead of turning out the vote. You are not fooling anyone. https://t.co/VtxFU5FhrA
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) November 5, 2025
You've gone all-in with him, that's your right, just as it's our right to wonder why you would do this. He has become toxic due to his own actions, including normalizing Nazi historical revisionism, pushing disloyalty claims, trying to turn Christians against Jews, hijacking and… https://t.co/pihhSRvadF pic.twitter.com/9tzKwMG7m5
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) September 30, 2025
Sure, the loyalty to a longtime friend is understandable.
But don't gaslight us into the nonsensical moral equivalency stuff. Nazis are bad. If you're afraid to confront that reality, you've been hijacked by audience capture and you stand for nothing. https://t.co/RMsrssKLn1
— Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) November 5, 2025
It’s getting ugly out there folks, but whether the GOP goes Groyper is a fight that needs to be had now.
Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) Republicans will realize you can have the broad coalition put together by @realDonaldTrump and victory, or you can have @TuckerCarlson's political agenda. You can't have both.
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) November 5, 2025
This is yet another reason why @TuckerCarlson promoting this creep is so damaging, it will be completely exploited by the mainstream media to make this N@zi the face of the Republican Party. https://t.co/CP4iltWRur
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) November 4, 2025
More to follow in the coming days.
UPDATE
About 20 minutes after this post went live, Roberts posted another video with the same theme. He still pledges friendship to Tucker, and seems incapable of understanding how damaging and pernicious Tucker has become. Many of the comments to the video are so positive in comparison to the reaction to his prior videos they seem staged to me.
Leadership requires owning the moments where we fall short, then using them to reset, refocus, and recommit.
Here is what we are focused on moving forward. Join us. Let’s go win! pic.twitter.com/3xtuP8NDkq
— Kevin Roberts (@KevinRobertsTX) November 6, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Bye-bye, Heritage!!
It should not be Roberts’ decision whether he goes or stays. Step up Board! Confirm him or get rid of him. The world is watching.
Gee…who has more Jewhaters – the democrats or the republicans. I think the green-red alliance greatly upped the democrat count but prior to that it might have been a toss up that changed depending upon the decade.
Roberts must go and republicans need to get their shit together
We have ONE year before midterms
Jesus!!!
I think the Republicans are in for a thrashing in ’26.
I am afraid you are right
We sat on our laurels with the Trump HUGE win
Thisnis a wake up call but the left is crazy nuts and actually do know k ow to fight
I presume “Jesus” is a prayer, not an expletive…
You assumed wrong but just saying Jesus!!! Is a southern statement , or swearing as in “shit”
one in the same
Herritage is irrelevant. TPUSA matters. To win in the Midterms, we need a truly massive get-out-the-vote machine. Charlie Kirk arguably delivered several states to Trump, and now he is dead. Can Charlie’s wife fill his shoes? The Midterms depend on it because there are no other GOTV organizations on our side. The Democrats have many – unions, Soros orgs, etc… We have none other than TPUSA.
Guys, if you want to fight anti-semitism, keep your powder dry for the real anti-semitism. This over the top canceling (and labeling as a nazi) anyone who doesn’t support christian zionism (which is, in fact, a heresy) gets you no friends and actually pushes people towards the different opinions you cannot tolerate.
“This over the top canceling (and labeling as a nazi) anyone who doesn’t support christian zionism”
That’s completely inaccurate. You have it backwards. It was Carlson that exploded on those that do support it. And it was not just anyone. Or are saying that Fuentes’s santisemitism is not real? Carlson saving Christianity is like Democrats saving democracy. With “friends” like you mention, who needs enemies? Can you, like Carlson, not tolerate opinions of Christian Zionists? Do you agree with what he said?
Sorry Ransom but proclaiming Christian Zionism to be heresy is not only grossly wrong, it’s also highly divisive. You’re basically rejecting anyone who isn’t Roman Catholic (who tend to vote Democrat). Black church (who vote Hard Democrat), mainline denominations (who tend to lean Democrat) and possibly Mormon – who vote Republican but aren’t Christian Zionists because they are no more Christian than Mohammedans. Who gets rejected? Republican voting Evangelicals. Honestly, could a more divisive angle be taken by a Democrat operative?
I think we have to distinguish between Christian Zionism as a specific theological proposition, which many Christians do indeed see as false theology and even as heresy, and Christians’ political support for Zionism, i.e. for the State of Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. One can be a Christian and a Zionist without being a Christian Zionist.
If Tucker Carlson were a Christian theologian, and he had said that while he supports Israel he denounces the theological propositions represented by Christian Zionism, no one but actual Christian Zionists could object. Certainly Jews such as myself would have to stay out of it, since we have no dog in that fight.
There is a similar issue in Judaism. There is a strong movement within Judaism known as “religious Zionism”, or “religious nationalism”. דתי לאומי. Followers of this movement, and the teachings of such rabbis as Rabbi A.Y.Y. Kook and his son Rabbi T. Y. Kook, hold specific theological propositions that many other Orthodox Jews dispute. Some even call these propositions heresy. That does not necessarily mean that these opponents are politically against Zionism, let alone that they oppose the continued existence of the state or the actions of its defense forces.
Chabad, for instance, is very pro-Israel but very against Religious Zionism, which it does regard as heretical. Chabad is among the strongest defenders of Israel, but will not fly the Israeli flag or sing its anthem.
So opposition to Christian Zionism as a theology is not necessarily antisemitic. But opposition to Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, including any criticism of the way it defends itself, is antisemitic. And that is where Tucker Carlson is.
PS: By “any criticism of the way it defends itself” I meant criticism from the left, i.e. denouncing how many “innocent Palestinians” were killed, and demanding that Israel surrender rather than killing so many “civilians”. I didn’t mean criticism from the right, i.e. denouncing Israel for being too weak and deliberately endangering its soldiers’ and citizens’ lives for the sake of killing fewer of the enemy, or for the sake of currying favor with Western liberals.
What is your definition of Christian Zionism.
The idea, as a matter of Christian theology, that God’s covenant with Israel remains in effect; that all Biblical references to Israel continue to refer to the ethnic group known as the Jewish nation, regardless of whether they accept Christianity; that as a consequence it is right and proper that the Jews return to their Land and reestablish their sovereignty there as the prophets said they would; that the State of Israel is the beginning of those prophecies’ fulfillment, and thus Christians are religiously obligated to support it; and that the second coming can’t happen until all of this does.
Milhouse, Thank you! That’s the definition I hold to. When Tucker Carlson says that he “despises Christian Zionists more than anyone on earth” and refers to their beliefs as a “dangerous heresy” and a “brain virus infecting the church”, he is the heretic. I can only pray that God will destroy his ability to do evil. I will never pray that God will condemn anyone to hell.
Gibbie, as to who’s the heretic, as a non-Christian I don’t get a vote. But whenever a dispute exists between people it’s important to understand exactly what it is that they’re disputing. Each side should understand the other side’s position, and why they’re wrong. If you don’t understand what the other guy is saying then you’re just talking past each other.
I’m both a Christian and I guess I’m a Zionist. I support the idea of Jewish people having a homeland and maintaining control of that homeland. I think that makes me a Zionist, but I’m not really sure. I do not think that for religious reasons, but because I judge that the only means of maintaining functioning societies/cultures is for them to be largely (though not exclusively) people of the same or very similar cultures. Practically, that usually comes down to ethnicity, though I wish it didn’t.
I disagree that “any” criticism of Israel’s defense of necessarily antisemitic, though the two seem to go together often. I don’t think it’s impossible that Israel could do absolutely horrible, unnecessary things in the name of defense. I just don’t think they have done so. If I did think so, then my criticism wouldn’t be antisemitic because it wouldn’t be based on any racial/national identity, but rather general criticism of the doing of horrible unnecessary things.
In my neck of the woods, an awful lot of people are dispensational and they all seem to agree that the covenants of the Lord apply to the “Jewish people” even if they reject Christ. Historically, that is a relatively new position and most older protestant groups reject it. Of the people I have seen that are openly antisemitic, they see a Jewish conspiracy to subvert Christianity by somehow causing the popularity of that position amongst the dispensational branches. I don’t see how it can possibly be true, but that’s what I’ve often heard.
To me that is all noise. I don’t care about Zionism, whether Christian or otherwise. Supporting Israel is in the US Interest, to a point, but mindlessly supporting the actions of a foreign country regardless of what they do is not. US interests and Israeli interests overlap, but are not identical.
I’m not sure I even saw the distinction between Christian Zionism and Christians as Zionists that you make, probably because there isn’t one for me, and probably not for most of those I know.
Strictly speaking anything that isn’t Roman Catholicism is heresy, if you’re operating on the basis of heresy is dissent from the view of the majority – Roman Catholicism is over half those deemed Christian.
On the other hand if you’re operating on the basis of anything in conflict with Scripture is heresy, well then Roman Catholicism is heretical – worship of Mary as Queen of Heaven, or the pantheon of saints the ‘Roman religion’ follows is inconsistent with Scripture.
Ultimately it depends on how you define heresy, and to a lesser extent how you define Christian Zionism, as to whether it’s heretical or not.
I agree opposition to Christian Zionism is not anti-Semitic, it’s rejection of Christian theology rather than Jews, however someone who is anti-Semitic will almost certainly be anti-Zionist and so reject the theology. The exception to this are those who believe each ‘kind’ should keep to their ‘own people’ and live in ‘their own’ country or area. Kind in this case being race, ethnic group etc, rather than descendants of Adam and Eve by way of Noah.
Thanks for letting us know what real anti-semitism is. Pfft!
This shit needs to be nipped in the bud.
The creation of the modern state of Israel is a public miracle, occurring some 2000 years after the Jews were expelled from the land and possibly fulfilling a Divine prophecy.
The only heresy is in refusing to praise God’s handiwork in this world.
This! Well said.
Supersessionism vs Dispensationalism. It’s an ugly fight that at it’s extremes results in people like Fuentes who think the holocaust was some kind of divine retribution.
It’s not an apology, it’s a cowardly retreat from a right-wing cancel culture.
I’ve been hoping to find out what horrible thing anybody is supposed to have said, but they have a point of view and should defend it openly; and the opposition should criticize it directly without the attitude. Nobody knows how to argue anymore.
My own defense of the Jews would be that the Talmud is more Christian that Christianity itself, but that gets attacked by official Jews in the US as not preserving how special Jews are. When Jews not being special is the ethical point of the Talmud.
Something to argue there is being avoided, which would be pro Jewish but against the official US Jewish position.
Horror and outrage are not at all interesting. What group doesn’t do that these days.
That is about the stupidest and most counterfactual thing I have heard in a while. It’s something that every single one of the hundreds of scholars quoted in the Talmud, and the thousands involved in its composition who are not quoted, would have utterly rejected. It’s contrary to everything the Talmud stands for. And you say this without ever having studied it yourself, based on the word of a French philosopher who never spent a day in a yeshiva, and who I doubt could even read a page of the Talmud in the original Aramaic without help.
Try reading it. Levinas, Difficult Freedom: essays on Judaism. It adds (does not take away) a Western ethical interpretation to the Talmud, which interpretation makes Judaism the foundation of the West. Good for the antisemitism problem, if you wanted to argue something substantive instead of name calling. Probably good for Jews too, to find a tie to the West in it. It would make me proud of my heritage instead of cringingly protective.
Short form, everybody is special and everybody is a Jew. The specialness is an obligation to the other, the thing that finally singles you out as you, noninterchangeable and unique.
That singling out is the moral component of anything, as opposed to just some fact or another without morality. The is/ought gap.
It may be good for all sorts of things, but it isn’t true. It isn’t what the Talmud actually means. I guess if you follow one French philosopher you might as well also follow another one, Derrida, and say that there is no real meaning in any text but only what the reader chooses to see in it. But that’s bulldust.
The Talmud, like any text, means something, and it doesn’t mean other things. There are layers of meaning in it, and many valid interpretations can be found there, but that doesn’t mean anything you see there is valid.
As one of my teachers used to say, it’s true that there are 70 faces to the Torah, but remember that there are also 70 backsides. For every valid interpretation that you find in the text, there is at least one invalid one that you can impose on it if you push hard enough.
Derrida deconstructs systems he loves, and the result is amazement not disparagement. It’s always a journey through the workings of a system that nevertheless works.
He happens to be very difficult to read at normal reading speeds so few bother.
I’d suggest for guys Derrida’s “Spurs” (skip the preface by somebody else) and for women “The Post Card,” if you want an easy to read at normal speeds essay.
My introduction to Levinas was through Derrida “Violence and Metaphysics” essay in “Writing and Difference,” where Derrida took on Levinas but the matter was never settled as Levinas responded. Derrida’s deconstruction just showed the appeal of Levinas, rather than demolishing him.
Do a google AI search on Emmanual Levinas for his incorporation of rabbinic tradition with Western tradition as a newly fruitful method of reading the Talmud. He’s not “some French philosopher” but one with a large following.
Have I quoted his preface to Existence and Existents? An early sign of a disposition to good sense
“These studies begun before the war were continued and written down for the most part in captivity. The Stalag is evoked here not as a guarantee of profundity nor as a claim to indulgence, but as an explanation for the absence of any consideration of those philosophical works published, with so much impact, between 1940 and 1945.”
I don’t care. Having a following doesn’t make his views any more valid. He’s still some French philosopher, not a Talmud scholar. I know more on that subject than he did.
He’s a threat to your position of authority by having a better way to read the Talmud, which is what his following is about in fact.
It’s not a better way if it’s a false way. The things he claimed to discover in the Talmud aren’t there, he shoved them in. They’re not true. Which is why I invoked Derrida, who didn’t care whether his readings were true, and rejected the whole idea of objective truth.
Hence the “living constitution”. The constitution has an objective meaning, that judges are charged with discovering by means of an honest and humble search. The same is true of the Talmud, although it has many more layers of true meaning than the constitution does. Still, there are only so many layers actually there, and ones that aren’t there aren’t there, no matter how much you want them to be there.
Derrida cares about the accuracy of his readings, which are about how words work. Likewise Levinas who cares about the accuracy of his readings of the Talmud. To see that you have to read him.
Any reading of the Talmud that results in a statement that Jews aren’t special, or that everyone is a Jew, is a false reading. It contradicts everything that the Talmud is about. It’s like “discovering” a prohibition of “cultural appropriation” in the US constitution.
As it happens this whole thing is played for entertainment by Imus 4/28/2001, after basketball player Charlie Ward said in his Bible study group that the Jews killed Jesus, promptly reported by the NY Times.
Sports station WFAN was embroiled all day in whether or not Charlie Ward should be immediately suspended. Imus called each host to make as much trouble as possible, as Imus always does for entertainment.
Imus strategically taking the Jews’ side as causing the most trouble.
Radio host Chris “Mad Dog” Russo was having none of it, saying “Holocaust Schmolocaust” to the Holocaust privilege claim on the other side.
Every current argument is seen in the show.
The thing is settled at the end by an engineer/Rabbi very neatly, probably not possible today where outrage must be preserved at all times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUvdp0fsU0o
likely to appeal to anybody who can see outrage as ridiculous ritual, which is what Imus brings out.
Did I ever mention the origin of “outrage”? It’s from French outre, beyond what is proper, as in wrong salad fork.
That’s turned from an adjective to a noun by the addition of -age, and English sees “rage.”
What is beyond what is proper deserves rage, the word itself says so.
Today not a person in a thousand sees any difference between the wrong salad fork and rage, the thing and the reaction, as if they were one thing.
This was so useful that the word was reimported back into French.
A lot of young republicans are alarmed that a movement that was explicitly America first seems mostly owned, operated and driven by people with loyalties to a different state, and talking about reexamining or negotiating our relationship with that state is verboten.
That conversation is happening whether or not you censor Tucker. I assume that’s what bothers you the most. Unfortunately, this younger generation is very used to being told to shut up and fall in line.
Bullshit…
They are not “alarmed”, they have chosen to join and old, false conspiracy theory that has once again been repackaged as new. Calling out Jew hate like you are promoting here is not part of a conspiracy. It’s just standing up to bullies.
1. Fuentes is kooky, antisemitic, has oddball views including reprehensible admiration for Hitler and Stalin.
2. TC gave him a platform in an ‘interview’ but instead of challenging Fuentes on his kooky statements/claims he allowed it to basically unchallenged turning the ‘interview’ into an open mic opportunity to spew nonsense.
3. When heat came over this latest example of TC going off the rails the Pres of Heritage jumped feet first to an uncritical defense of TC, their org’s association with TC and by implication Fuentes.
IMO, the bottom line is TC, Candice Owens among others have gone off the rails. They should not be granted close association or speaking opportunities at events hosted by Heritage or other center/right orgs.
Now on America First….that IMO, means exactly what it sounds like. The interest of the USA and the safety, security and economic well-being of its Citizens come before those of other Nations. Period. Not at all controversial. The USA doesn’t owe any duty based on religion to any Nation. Can individual US Citizens hold the view that a particular Nation should be owed? Sure, it’s a free Country. Likewise legitimate criticism offered in good faith towards the policies or acts of other Nations is also acceptable and not in any way objectionable. Nor is criticism of our own political leaders who seem to hold other things as priorities above the basic America First criteria of placing the best interests of the broad US middle-class the 70% between the top 15% and bottom 15% above other considerations.
Mostly agree.
Does America First mean we cannot have staunch allies whom we support and who support us? An ally doesn’t (in any way) indicate blind allegiance but somehow the America First group interprets any alliance with Israel as unpatriotic. That makes no sense to me.
We can put American First while generally supporting those nations who interests generally align with ours.
Let’s separate out some things to make sure we’re on the same page. I would argue the true ‘America First’ (modern not tainted) position would adhere to Washington’s admonition about being wary of ‘entangling alliances’. This is especially true in the post Cold War era. Why are we still in NATO when the organizing principle and reason for its existence, as a Western counter poise to the USSR and Warsaw Pact has been dead and buried for 30+ years? No Russia is not the USSR, doesn’t make them ‘good’, they ain’t but its a bad faith argument to suggest Russia is equivalent to the Soviet Empire.
IMO every alliance should be reviewed holistically. Does an alliance with the particular Nation offer a net positive to the USA? IDoes it uphold Western CIV values/norms? Does it have a bunch of protectionist trade policies that harm US workers and US producers? IOW does the purported ‘ally’ behave as if it is ‘owed’ US support and often times ‘bite the hand that feeds it’? Are they genuinely trying to be our friend in their actions diplomatically, economically? If not then why do we want to number them among our friends?
For a very long time Israel has had very restrictive trade policies deployed against US agriculture. Not exactly the act of a friend. Same sorts of anti US trade policies, often worse, from our NATO ‘allies’. Look at British gov’t today and tell me they are acting to support tradition Western Civilization/values. The EU is seeking to undermine free speech and political dissent. France, Germany and Netherlands are close to banning major opposition political parties. The EU wants to enforce their totalitarian big brother policies on US based tech/social media platforms issuing crippling extraterritorial fines/punishments. Are those the actions of friends who share our commitment to traditional Western Civilization and values?
I take America First as meaning that Trump negotiates for America, in particular every deal leaves America better off. That doesn’t mean that it leaves the other country worse off – on the contrary mutual benefit is how deals happen.
No more deals that are a net loss for America, is all.
That seems far too narrow and frankly transient an interpretation of what has become an operating political philosophy for a large portion of the center/right b/c it revolves around DJT v the USA.
And what do you do when after you negotiate such a deal, the same people say that you and the rest of our government are controlled by Israel, just like they said before such a deal? Do you renegotiate the deal again and again every time someone makes the broken-record accusation?
Fair enough. But we do gain from Israeli R&D in technology, medicine and other consumer and military fields. We also benefit strategically from their location in the Middle East as the only other democratic nation in that area. We, arguably benefit from military and strategic intelligence as well.
Furthermore, since we have mutual goals in these other areas, would it behoove us to pursue more favorable agricultural policies through trade negotiations as we are doing in the Far East and other geographical arenas?
I don’t like my neighbors on my own street very much, but we have similar worthwhile objectives concerning our property. Therefore, my husband and I put aside minor disagreements to pursue larger goals since our values align.
Sure. When we share common interests with a particular Nation we should be willing to work with them not spurn them. That’s my real point….Nations don’t really have permanent ‘Friends’ instead they have permanent National interests which they should pursue with cooperation from willing Nations while keeping in mind those other Nations are doing the same, that any current alignment is transitory and we may find ourselves at odds with them tomorrow on another issue or more than one.
Nations (and their advocates/surrogates) who proclaim themselves to be our Friends should be required to demonstrate their friendship. Not by sending tribute but by acting in a friendly manner. A friendly Nation doesn’t seek to be exploitive of the USA. They don’t act entitled to perpetual military support. They don’t erect grossly one sided trade barriers to harm US Citizens. They don’t threaten US tech/social media with extraterritorial fines and punishment. To a large degree they must share our commitment to Western Civilization and demonstrate that via actions. Britain is falling short. As are Germany and the Netherlands. France as well. All of these Nations seek to quash or outlaw meaningful political dissent or ban large opposition political parties. I’d suggest those are not the acts of Nations with a shared commitment to Western Civilization or our ‘shared’ values.
Tucker Carlson is liability.
Tucker Carlson is all about Tucker Carlson. Since he was fired from Fox, he has depended on subscribers to make money. He knows where his bread is buttered. Controversy is good for him, and being just a me-too Conservative is not. His critics don’t pay him, his subscribers do.
everyone is influenced by someone
good orrrr bad
we allow tax paid leftist teachers to indoctrinate innocent young minds…but cant /WONT seem to stop the funding
yet a free market allows carlson to let fuentes say what he wants and WITH that many are willing to go to the mats
mixed up priorities
I hate that anyone would be anti semitic but Id rather we have this free market and STOP the non free market school system with the same energy
Geesh, let it go already. Tucker is an affable guy who used to work for the Heritage Foundation. His current
way to earn a buck is to grant long, soft interviews to a mixed bag of nuts and let people decide for themselves.
Male French first ladies, 9/11 inside job, aliens among us- take your pick.
The outrage is over the top. Just ignore it to make a better impression.
I know little about Fuentes. Never read an essay he’s written or listened to his podcast or whatever it is he does.
After I noticed the obviously coordinated and concerted effort among mostly center-right Jews on Tucker – people I agree with on nearly everything and have admired – I finally decided to listen to the first hour of the interview he did with Tucker. I never would have listened had the code red on Tucker not been issued. So it is an example of the Streisand Effect.
I found Fuentes articulate. Not at all vulgar. His version of how he got his start as a commentator, how his beliefs evolved, and how he later got blacklisted was interesting. Nothing struck me as hateful “anti-Semitism” in that first hour, but I could see why some people who strongly support Israel would not like some of the things he said.
You need to keep listening. He is unquestionably vulgar. He is clearly antisemitic. He thinks Hitler was a ‘cool guy”
I don’t plan to watch more of the Tucker interview with Fuentes. I watched the Ben Shapiro “NO” video instead.
Not crazy about forming judgments based on video snippets taken out of context. However, in this case the stuff Fuentes says in many of those snippets is so vile and disgusting the full context can not make them better. I felt like I needed a bleach shower after hearing him.
I knew Heritage Foundation went downhill when they tweeted support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Is Nick Fuentes an anti-semite or does he just play one on TV?
Who the hell knows? Fuentes himself may not know.
What he is, is an egomaniac who wants to take over the entire Trump / Republican / conservative cause. And what he can’t take over, he intends to destroy.
The only positive in this picture is that Fuentes’ following does not (so far as we know) include a street army.
No one benefits from any association with groypers. If the Heritage Foundation is so foolish as to invite them in, Heritage will find out the hard way.
If Fuentes were to get what he wants (complete control, making even Donald Trump dance to his tune), the destruction of the Republican party would quickly ensue.
Fortunately, there aren’t that many groypers and most people who have to listen to Fuentes for more than a few minutes realize he is a whack job.
Here’s a rough parallel to groypers taking over the Republican party and related institutions. (Rough only, because groypers share no common ground with the people they want to push out of the way.)
Suppose that hard-core black racists (the remnant Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, Joy Reid, some leaders of BLM, etc.) were to take over the Democratic Party. A black racist is a person who believes that black folks belong to a superior race and white people belong to an inferior race (usually, the most inferior race). Oh, and Jews are even worse than white people. Black racists do have some clout among Democrats, enough to frighten some others into making concessions to them.
But how many black racists are there? A very small percentage of black Americans. I’ve seen an estimate of Louis Farrakhan’s following that amounts to 20,000. The New Black Panther Party can’t even match that. How much of BLM is still active?
The effect of a black racist takeover would be devastating to the Democratic Party. It would drive almost everyone else out of the party, including most of its black supporters. Of course the black racists lack the numbers or the strategy to accomplish such a takeover.
But if Democrats had any sense—which they may not have—they would declare that black racists have nothing to do with them and they have nothing to do with black racists.
What’s more, there are no forces in the mass media trying to hang black racism around the necks of Democrats. There are such forces trying to hang groyperism around the necks of Democrats.
So, yeah, Heritage, say no to groypers. And if Tucker Carlson doesn’t like that, say no to him, too. Fuentes can still post or broadcast his crap somewhere, while no one else pays him any mind.
sorry, hang groyperism around the necks of *Republicans.*
Oh, what I would give for an Edit function…
There are several WordPress plugins that handle editing comments neatly and with no fuss. I don’t understand why the administrator here refuses to install one of them.
I just read Ace’s take and it’s a must-read.