Tucker’s Interview with Nick Fuentes

Tucker Carlson Interviews Nick Fuentes: Video and transcript

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes has gotten considerable coverage in the media, e.g., “Tucker Carlson discusses ‘these Zionist Jews’ with avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes in The Times of Israel” and “Heritage Foundation president stands by Tucker Carlson after host platforms antisemitism” in the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

Regarding the Heritage Foundation, the email from Jewish Insider:

Communal concern: Jewish conservatives, including the CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, condemned [Heritage Foundation president] Roberts’ defense of Carlson. RJC CEO Matt Brooks said that Heritage’s defense of Carlson and Fuentes “is a total abrogation of their mission and what it means to be a conservative today.” Brooks said there will now be a “reassessment” of the RJC’s relationship with the Heritage Foundation..

And: Jewish lawyer quits Heritage Foundation’s antisemitism task force over Tucker Carlson defense.

“Elevating him and then attacking those who object as somehow un-American or disloyal in a video replete with antisemitic tropes and dog whistles, no less, is not the protection of free speech. It is a moral collapse disguised as courage,” wrote [Mark] Goldfeder, who is also an Orthodox rabbi.

He continued, “It is especially painful that Heritage, an institution with a historic role in shaping conservative policy, would choose this moment to blur the line between worthwhile debate and the normalization of hate.”

Roberts went after Fuentes, but it’s noteworthy that he failed to condemn Tucker, presumably because Tucker is well connected to mainstream conservatives and has had ads for the Heritage Foundation on his show (since scrubbed from their website):

“Nick Fuentes’s antisemitism is not complicated, ironic, or misunderstood. It is explicit, dangerous, and demands our unified opposition as conservatives. Fuentes knows exactly what he is doing. He is fomenting Jew hatred, and his incitements are not only immoral and un-Christian, they risk violence,” Roberts wrote.

“Our task is to confront and challenge those poisonous ideas at every turn to prevent them from taking America to a very dark place,” he added. “Join us—not to cancel—but to guide, challenge, and strengthen the conversation, and be confident as I am that our best ideas at the heart of western

New York Post: Heritage Foundation in revolt over Tucker Carlson defense after controversial Nick Fuentes interview: ‘Footsie with literal Nazis’

In Carlson’s two-hour interview, which has racked up more than 17 million views on X, Fuentes called himself “a fan” of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and denounced the influence of “organized Jewry” in US politics, while Carlson accused American Christians who support the state of Israel of being heretics with a “brain virus.” … The ripple effect from Roberts’ statement has gone beyond staff issues, with sources close to the think tank saying that it has been “hemorrhaging” evangelical Christian and Jewish contributors. … If we are labeled on the same side as Nick Fuentes, then we deserve to lose,” chimed in a fourth Heritage colleague, who later added: “Talking with some of the interns I think that there are a growing number of them who actually agree” with the views Fuentes espoused. [Wow!!]

References to Heritage’s sponsorship of The Tucker Carlson Network, which hosts the show Fuentes appeared on, seem to have been scrubbed from the think tank’s donations page since some point last week. … David Bernstein, the author of “Woke Antisemitism” and a former member of a task force at Heritage called “Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism,” told The Post Monday that he had resigned from his position over Roberts’ remarks. “The language that to me was most problematic was a ‘venomous coalition’ aligned against him [Carlson] — because that’s me and any Jewish person who cares about condemning antisemitism,” Bernstein said. [“Venomous.” If the shoe fits, wear it.]

“They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry.” [A good sign indeed.]

“In the last six months, I’ve seen more antisemitism on the right than I have in my entire life. This is a poison, and I believe we are facing an existential crisis in our party and in our country,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Friday night.

“Now is the time for choosing, now is the time for courage,” Cruz added in an address that referenced other guests on Carlson’s podcast who have downplayed Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust. “If you say nothing, then you are a coward and you are complicit in that evil.”

Of course, the really courageous people are people like Tucker Carlson who has much to lose in this battle. But some people are too big to cancel. Tucker is still scheduled to speak at the upcoming Turning Points USA conference in December.

So it’s a big deal. It’s a long interview. Here are excerpts that I want to address:

Tucker [00:45:21] Well, so my read on Joe Kent was he’s totally sincere. He, like me, has always been committed to separating out foreign policy views from ethnicity, not because, obviously I’m denounced as an anti-Semite every day. So I don’t really care what ADL thinks of me, but my Christian faith tells me that there’s no such thing as blood guilt. And Virtue or sin is not inherited. It’s not a feature of DNA. So every person must be assessed individually as God assesses each person individually and that’s like a foundational view, so I always thought it’s great to criticize and it’s a question like our relationship with Israel because it’s insane and it hurts us; we get nothing out of it. I completely agree with you there. But the second you’re like, well actually it’s the Jews. First of all, it’s against my Christian faith. Like, I just don’t believe that and I never will, period. And second, then it becomes a way to discredit. That’s when I was like, this guy’s a fed. I was totally convinced you were a fed because I was, like, here he’s bear hugging, like, the one sincere guy who lost his wife in Syria thanks to these fucking crazy wars, neocon wars. And he’s discredited, he’s doing the David Duke. Like, David Duke would always, every time I rolled out a new show, he would issue an endorsement of the show. I’ve never met the guy. What’s that? Well, it’s the feds. Obviously, he’s trying to destroy me.

David Duke a fed??

Tucker seems to be implying that we should only talk about the Jews as individuals, never as a group — “the Jews,” implying that by referring to the Jews, Fuentes is putting all Jews in the same basket. This is the wrong way to think about it. Of course, one can’t put all Jews in the same basket, implying that all are on the same page on anything. Who says that?? You can’t think of Stephen Miller like you think of Jonathan Greenblatt.

But there’s a middle ground that acknowledges that Jews should be judged as individuals, but that it also makes sense to talk about Jewish power as the consequence of the activism of particular Jews acting in particular influential groups. The question that must be asked is: How much power do groups of activist Jews have, where is Jewish power directed, and which Jews are behind that power? The ADL and the Israel Lobby, along with the massively organized Jewish community are creations of the mainstream Jewish community. (There is a Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations representing 53 national Jewish organizations.) They exert a lot of power, including the power to get America into fighting Israel’s wars, funding Israel, and supporting Israel diplomatically, as both Tucker and Fuentes would agree.

So it’s silly not to talk about Jewish power in the U.S. as effected by particular groups of Jews. One always has to ask questions like, “Which groups have more power in influencing U.S. foreign policy, the Israel Lobby or is it the Jewish Voice for Peace?” We all know the answer to that. No Congressman is afraid of the Jewish Voice for Peace but the vast majority live in fear of the Israel Lobby.

And yes, the Israel Lobby is a creation of the mainstream American Jewish community. We can identify the main forces in the Lobby, we can identify their operatives, and their donors. Organizations like the ADL (which has vigorously supported the Israeli genocide in Gaza), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Middle East Forum, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Zionist Organization of America (the ZOA didn’t hold back: “ZOA States Kevin Roberts Is Unfit to Lead Heritage Fdn. & Must Condemn & End Support for Jew-Hating, Israel-Hating Tucker Carlson,” Nov. 3, 2025.). All are well-funded and working to support Israel. I discuss them in my 2004 paper on the neoconservatives (an updated version is in the Third Edition of The Culture of Critique). Not all of them are headed by Jews, a point that is discussed in the chapter and will be returned to below.

Here’s the way I think we should think about these issues. From my “The Failure of the Default Hypothesis to Explain Jewish Influence“:

In general, this area of scholarship [whether it’s the Israel Lobby or the Frankfurt School] stands or falls depending on whether certain specific influential intellectual and political movements of the twentieth century were originated and dominated by Jews who were attempting to advance Jewish interests. Thus it does not stand or fall on whether Jews in a particular movement constitute more than their percentage of the population as a whole, whether Jews in general are ethnocentric, the rate of Jewish intermarriage, or whether most Jews were even aware of particular movements. The focus is on describing the Jewish identities of the main figures of influential movements and their concern with specific Jewish issues, such as combatting anti-Semitism [or supporting Israel], as well as the dynamics of these movements—ethnic networking, centering around charismatic figures, connections with prestigious universities and media, involvement of the organized Jewish community, and non-Jews who participated in the movements and their motivations.

The Jewish community is clearly not monolithic, although at particular historical periods there has been substantial consensus on particular issues [e.g., Israel and the desirability of non-White immigration and multiculturalism as a model for Western societies]. Individual influential Jews or a separate influential Jewish intellectual movement may be critical of a specific Jewish intellectual movement. For example, the split beginning in the 1930s between the Stalinist left (“Jews and the Left,” The Culture of Critique: Ch. 3) and the Trotskyist left (“Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,”) comes to mind. It is possible that some components of the opposition to the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, such as Mondoweiss or Jewish Voice for Peace, may also be reasonably analyzed as Jewish movements. But in order to establish that an organization critical of Israel constitutes a Jewish movement, one would have to discuss whether the originators and dominant figures have a Jewish identity and whether they see their activities as furthering Jewish interests. And then one would need to assess its power relative to other Jewish movements.

For example, the Jewish critics of Israel may regard a powerful Jewish influence on U.S. policy toward Israel as feeding into perceptions that Jews are disloyal—a very mainstream view among American Jews until well after the establishment of Israel; or Israeli actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians may be seen as hurting Israel in the long run [the view of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy]; a 2013 survey found 44 percent of U.S. Jews believe Israeli settlements hurt Israel. On the other hand, they may oppose what they see as Jewish interests in maintaining a Jewish state for moral reasons or because they see U.S. support for Israel as not in the interests of the United States [Carlson, Fuentes and I are good examples]. … Assuming that such a movement was originated and dominated by individuals with strong Jewish identity pursuing their perception of Jewish interests, it may be analogized to arguments between different Jewish factions in the Knesset—both dominated by Jews but with different perceptions of Jewish interests or even opposition to what they perceive as Jewish interests. …

The movements analyzed in CofC were originated and dominated by strongly identified Jews with a strong sense of Jewish interests, and there was a great deal of ethnic networking and mutual citation patterns, with non-Jews often relegated to subordinate roles that really amounted to window dressing. These movements have been influential, and the Jews at the center of these movements were critical to their influence.

And where is Jewish power being directed at this time? Obviously support for Israel is the most obvious, but the ADL is leading the campaign to dilute the First Amendment in order to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, particularly on X (Twitter) and soon on Larry Ellison’s Tik Tok (Ellison has also installed self-described Zionist fanatic Bari Weiss as head of CBS), and Jewish billionaires are blacklisting students and withholding funds from universities if they protest Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians. And the organized Jewish community remains entirely committed to non-White immigration and multiculturalism as a model for Western societies, as they have for over 100 years in the United States. We are witnessing an incredible display of Jewish power in the United States. We have to be able to talk about it.

Fuentes. unlike Carlson, is quite specific about the need to explicitly advocate for White interests:

Fuentes: By winning, I mean, we wanna see our vision realized. But with Joe [Kent], for me, it was very specific. He said inclusive populism. And I really didn’t like that because to me, there were a lot of similar phrases at this time, multiracial, working class, populism, this kind of stuff. And I said, you know, on some level, we do need to be exclusive, not inclusive. We do need to be right-wing. We do need to be Christian. We do on some level need to be pro-White. Not to the exclusion of everybody else, but recognizing that White people have a special heritage here as Americans. And so the reason I opposed him in 22 was not because I was mad … . America first cannot backslide into this kind of inclusive populism message, which I perceive to be more like GOP slop. And I’ll tell you, when he ran again in 24, I did not oppose him. I did, and I would have supported him if he had reached out or something like that. Because for me, it was very political and professional. I wanted to impose a cost. If you disavow someone because they criticize Israel, if you disavow someone for talking about white people and Christianity, I said, we can’t let that slide because, and you understand why he did it. Like I don’t, on some level, I don’t hold it against him in the sense that there’s such a strong incentive. It’s easy to say, I disavowed all these crazy Christians and all these White nationalists. Because it buys you wiggle room with people that are attacking you. It’s like easy to throw them under the bus and say, I’m one of the good guys. And so I said, it’s too easy. We need to push in the other direction and say you should feel less comfortable saying that people shouldn’t talk about their race and religion. Maybe you’ll think twice next time. And that I, so I did it for a very specific reason. And, um, I get that.

Notice Tucker doesn’t object to this talk about White people but immediately changes the subject back to “all Jews.”

Tucker [00:50:36] What I do think is bad, just objectively bad and destructive is the, all Jews are guilty or all anybody is guilty of anything because that’s just like not true. And we don’t believe that as Christians. We, I mean, my hero in life is Paul. Cause you call him St. Paul, Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee and meets Jesus and becomes this just incredible, man, incredibly brave, smart. Loving, like everything you want to be as a man, he was too. Yeah. So like, I, you know, and God did that to him. So it’s like, you can’t, I think that’s an important, I don’t think it’s like mushy liberal bullshit, which I hate. I hate all the language that you’re describing. I get why it offends you because it’s code for, I don’t really believe what I’m saying. I, I have a PhD in the subject. So I know. But I also think there is like a true, not just principle, but like spiritual reality that we have to defend, which is God created every person as an individual, not as a group. No woman gave birth to a community. Like we hate that kind of thinking, right? Collective is thinking like that. That’s identity politics. That’s what Dave Rubin engages in. That’s why Dave is like just a child. Like you don’t pay any attention to Dave because he’s like shallow, but we’re not going to be.

I often wonder whether Carlson really believes all the Christian stuff he’s been spouting lately. I think it’s doubtful. I suspect that he sees Christianity as a useful ideology to unite a viable conservative movement that could bind together Americans of different races and different branches of Christianity, in the same manner as Charlie Kirk was so successful at. I think Tucker believes that’s the only realistic way forward in multicultural, multiethnic America. Tucker’s often-expressed commitment to Christianity just seems fake to me.

In any case, Tucker is pleading for individualism at a time when the West is made up of competing groups. It’s simply a losing strategy. Guess what? Cohesive groups made up of intelligent, committed individuals with plenty of financial wherewithal out-compete individualists every time. The Jews have known this forever.

Fuentes is much more on the right track after a bit of taking cover:

Nick Fuentes [00:51:59] That right? Or no? No, I, I completely agree with you. And, you know, like, and not to be that guy and say that thing, but like my best friend is a Jewish person, you know, but here’s my, I guess here’s my substantive disagreement because as a Catholic, I could not agree more with you in what you’re saying. I love all people, even the ones that don’t like us. We have to love them all. And we have to recognize that we’re required to. Yes. Yes. And especially Aquinas says the Jews are a witness people. And so they actually have special protections under the law, according to Catholic philosophy. But I guess my substantive disagreement, which I’ve said on the show also, is the idea that neoconservatism and Israel have nothing to do with Jewishness, Jewish identity, the Jewish religion, because clearly the state of Israel and the neocon’s are deeply motivated by that ethnic identity and their allegiance to Israel proceeds from that. The plan of greater Israel. The blood and soil nationalism of Israel. It stems from this ethno-religion, which is Judaism. Well, this is…

So Fuentes is saying that neoconservatism is at its core Jewish. Quite right. But Tucker goes right back to attacking identity politics and the whole “all Jews” thing.

Tucker [00:53:10] Uh, you know, just BLM, the new version, this is identity politics. They’re engaging in identity politics, I, I mean, that’s just so obvious to me. It, but the problem in your response, so you’re of, I mean, I get what you’re saying, but the problem and your response is it does not apply to every individual. No, and I would never say that. Okay. Well, I just think it’s important to say that not to kind of like dodge the accusations against you. My best friends are Jewish. I agree. Embarrassing, even though it’s probably true, and it’s true in my case actually, but whatever. But because just that principle that we’re all judged as individuals by what we do, our faith, the decisions that we make, the way we live our lives, and God will judge every one of us in that way, and that’s how we’re supposed to judge. I think that’s true.

Amazingly, Tucker seems to be claiming that neoconservatism as a Jewish movement is wrong because it doesn’t apply to all Jews. Absurd. With that sort of idea Jewishness becomes completely impotent. Any disagreement by even one Jew means we can never talk about the power of specific strongly identified groups of Jews effectively pursuing their perceptions of Jewish interests.

Fuentes [00:53:59] Yeah, and I totally agree. But I guess the disagreement is, you say identity politics, like it’s a bad thing. I think identity is reality.

Tucker [00:54:11] Identity is a reality. Absolutely. You just can’t have a country of 350 million, this diverse where it’s just like warring ethnicities, because then it’s Rwanda soon and the people with the most force just kill the others. So like, you can’t have that here.

Tucker’s argument here is simply a practical one. You can’t have an America riven by identity politics because it will produce conflict, possibly a civil war, while Fuentes is acknowledging the reality of identity politics and the need for Whites to have an identity as Whites with a “special place” in America. The fact is that the reality of non-White identity politics is not going to change, and if White people persist in denying their own identity politics based on their common  European ancestry, they will simply lose to people who do have a strong sense of identity and group commitment, as well as sufficient wealth and media involvement to make a difference (like the Jews). The Great Replacement, which Tucker abhors and is a basis for other claims that he is an anti-Semite, is not going to be derailed by White people deciding they have no identity. And trust me, because of our unique evolutionary history, White people are the only group that is susceptible to individualist prescriptions, as advocated by the Frankfurt School and the legacy media at least since World War II. Somehow Jews never succumbed to that, and ever since Horace Kallen (here, p. 484), Jews have been in the forefront of promoting a utopian view of a multicultural America where all the various groups would live in peace and harmony. Obviously, that’s not what is happening. It never will.

Nick Fuentes [00:54:28] Right? Yeah. And, but I would say specifically as it pertains to, you know, you, I think, have said it’s, it’s the neocons, it is the neocrons. And I think that neoconservatism, where does it arise from? It arises from Jewish leftists who were mugged by reality when they saw the surprise attack in the Yom Kippur War.

Well actually, it was before that when proto-neocons saw that Jews were being pushed out of elite positions in the USSR by Stalin after World War II. But the point is that some Jews with connections to elite universities and the media and with sufficient funding to create an elaborate infrastructure of lobbying groups realized that the left was not good for the Jews because of what the left was doing in the Soviet Union but also because opposition to Israel was developing on the left (particularly Blacks), and Israel needed a militarily strong ally that could be prodded into going to war for Israel. Jimmy Carter was not that person.

Tucker [00:54:50] Yeah, well, that’s a lot of it for sure. But then like, how do you explain Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, and they’re a lot like that John Bolton, I mean, I’ve known them all, George W. Bush, like the Karl Rove. I mean all people I know personally who I’ve seen be seized by this brain virus and they are not Jewish, most of them are self-described Christians and then the Christian Zionists who are. Well, Christian Zionists. Like, what is that? Right. And I can just say for myself, I dislike them more than anybody, you know, because like what, because it’s Christian heresy and I’m offended by that as a Christian. That’s why. So I don’t like, why not? Like I’m pissed at the neocons. Very pissed. I’ve said that a million times. I’ve been mad since December of 2003 when I went to Iraq. And so like I went and hassled, hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, cause that seemed like there’s a sitting Senator who’s like serving for Israel by his own description. He seemed like a worthy target. I’m not going after MTG who’s the most sincere, like why not go after Ted Cruz? I don’t understand.

I can’t say I found the ensuing discussion informative, but I do think that the question of why so many White people succumb to anti-White ideologies and blind support of Israel is critical. The fact is that human cultures are able to influence behavior and attitudes, so the question becomes: Who controls the culture?

Some ideas, based on Ch. 8 of my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

1. The Power of Media Messages. The elite media and academia have been captured by the left at least since World War II and especially since the 1960s. Jews as owners and contributors to the media and being overrepresented at elite universities have had a critical role—reviewed in the Preface to the Third Edition of The Culture of Critique, and I also discuss the project of Jewish intellectuals associated with the Frankfurt School after World War II to staff media companies with sympathetic people and pursue research on how to create effective media messages based on real social science (unlike works like The Authoritarian Personality which was nothing but ideology masquerading as science). Research has shown that media messages are able to inhibit the output evolutionarily ancient parts of the brain so important for survival and reproduction, e.g., dampening ethnocentrism.
2. Self-interest. Jews have been an elite in American society for decades. A large part of the problem is that these elites have created a very elaborate infrastructure so that, for the vast majority of individuals, economic and professional self-interest coincides with support for anti-White and pro-Israel policies. Particularly egregious examples are individuals like university presidents earning 7-figure salaries and advocating DEI ideology and companies that directly benefit from immigration via cheap labor, or companies that benefit from remittances sent by immigrants to relatives in other countries.  Adopting conventional views on race and ethnicity is a sine qua non for a career as a mainstream academic, a public intellectual, and in the political arena but brings with it long-term disaster for Whites as a group.
3. Fear of Punishment. The elites are able to exert punishment on dissenters, as the Israel Lobby is attempting to do now with Tucker Carlson. Having pro-White or anti-Israel ideas carries huge costs in terms of employment and social status.
4. Social Learning. People are prone to adopting the ideas and behavior of others who have prestige and high status, and this tendency fits well with an evolutionary perspective in which seeking high social status is a universal feature of the human mind. A critical component of the success of the culture of White dispossession is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, particularly the media and universities. Once it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, this culture became widely accepted among Whites of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes. Adopting the views on race and ethnicity held by elites also confers psychological benefits because it enhances one’s reputation in the contemporary moral community created by these elites. As Mark Goldfeder noted (see above), favorable attitudes toward Carlson’s interview is “is a moral collapse disguised as courage.” Clearly, saying the interview was a good thing because it moved the Overton window is to place oneself outside the moral community that is intensively policed by Jewish activists. On the other hand, as noted, publicly dissenting from these views carries huge costs for most people. White elites who turn their back on their own ethnic group are likely to be massively reinforced within the contemporary explicit culture, while those who attempt to advance White interests can expect to suffer financial and psychological costs.
5. Religion. Tucker complains about Ted Cruz for what he calls the  “religious heresy” of supposing that Bible says that nations that bless Israel will be blessed — a common view among Evangelicals and likely rationalizing Cruz’s warmongering on behalf of Israel. Ideologies are an evolutionary wild card because people may come to believe things that are not only false but, more importantly, are maladaptive. This “heresay” is one such belief, and it has been promoted by Jewish activists like Felix Untermeyer who was instrumental in getting the Scofield Bible, the basis of Christian Zionism, published by Oxford University Press in 1909. For examples, there are footnotes added in the 1960s such as: “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgment.” ” God made an unconditional promise of blessing through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.” “It has invariably fared ill with the  people who have persecuted the Jew, well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.” (Footnotes to Genesis 12:3)
6. Women: Empathy and Fear. For sound evolutionary reasons, women are more nurturant than men and more concerned about personal safety. Empathy is strongly linked to Nurturance/Love which implies that women will be more prone to be motivated by empathy for the suffering of others and pathological forms of altruism. In turn, this has important ramifications in the contemporary world saturated with images of suffering refugees, immigrants, and other non-Whites promoted by our hostile, media-savvy elite. Nurturance/Love involves the tendency to provide aid for those needing help, including children and people who are ill. This dimension is strongly associated with measures of femininity, and is associated with warm, empathic personal relationships and dependence., and the safest course is usually to go with the dominant group. Women are also more prone to concern for their personal safety, and the safest course is to go with powerful individuals and movements. Women are thus less likely to challenge entrenched dominance hierarchies, as noted by F. Roger Devlin.
7. Conscientiousness. Being conscientious is certainly a good thing in life; conscientious people do well at their jobs and, along with IQ, conscientiousness predicts upward mobility. On average, White people are quite high on conscientiousness. However, conscientious people also tend to be deeply concerned about their reputation, and having a good reputaiton is likely to result in long-term payoffs, as opposed to sociopaths who opt for short-term gains but quickly develop a poor reputation. Conscientious people are responsible, dependable, dutiful, and reliable, traits linked to honesty, morality, and behavior as a moral exemplar. Conscientiousness not only makes us better able to inhibit natural impulses like ethnocentrism, it also makes us more concerned about our reputation in a moral community. We want to fit into the community and we want to be known as cooperators, not cheaters. The downside, however, is that conscientious people may become so concerned about their reputation that they become conformists. Once the intellectual and political left had won the day, a large part of its success was that it dominated the moral and intellectual high ground on issues of race and ethnicity. The culture of critique had become conventionalized and a pillar of the intellectual establishment. People who dissent from this leftist consensus are faced with a disastrous loss of reputation—nothing less than psychological agony for conscientious people. Ostracism and moral condemnation from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group. This is especially so in the individualistic cultures of the West, where having a good reputation beyond the borders of the kinship group forms the basis of trust and civil society, and where having a poor reputation would have resulted in ostracism and evolutionary death.

One might think that just as the prefrontal control areas can inhibit ethnocentric impulses originating in the sub-cortex, we should be able to inhibit these primitive guilt feelings. After all, the guilt feelings ultimately result from absolutely normal attitudes of ethnic identity and interests that have been delegitimized as a result of the ultimate failure of the period of ethnic defense and immigration restriction that resulted from passage of the 1924 and 1952 immigration acts — and the rise of a new, substantially Jewish elite hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West and deeply concerned about their safety in relatively homogeneous White societies given what happened in Germany in the 1930s.

It should be therapeutic to understand that many of the people who created this culture retained a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests — the Israel Lobby being a case in point. And it should help assuage guilt feelings if we understand that this culture is now propped up by people seeking material advantages and psychological approval at the expense of their own ethnic interests. Given the strong Jewish influence in erecting this culture, the guilt feelings are nothing more than the end result of ethnic warfare, pursued at the level of ideology and culture instead of on the battlefield. Getting rid of guilt and shame over having defensible beliefs about race and Israel is certainly not an easy process. Psychotherapy for White people begins with an explicit understanding of the issues that allows us to act in our interests, even if we can’t entirely control the negative feelings engendered by those actions.

So I am not surprised that so many White people jump onto the pro-Israel band wagon. The only wonder is that there are any brave souls at all who are willing to cross into this hostile, psychologically difficult and economically perilous environment.