Once again, historian and conservative pundit Victor Davis Hanson feels the need to play whack-a-mole with World War II revisionism. Whenever it rears its ugly mug in mainstream society—often thanks to a free-thinking guest on Tucker Carlson’s podcast—Hanson dutifully reinforces the official, government-approved account of how the United States entered the war.  According to the narrative, President Franklin Roosevelt abhorred war and reluctantly entered the global conflict only after his hand was forced by the nefarious Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Most recently, Hanson posted a ten-minute video entitled “America Didn’t Provoke Japan—Here’s What Really Led to Pearl Harbor” on his Daily Signal YouTube channel. In it he does not even attempt to refute revisionism; he merely assures his viewers that revisionists are wrong, as if that alone would do the trick. The vast swaths of revisionist evidence he neglects to mention speaks either to his incompetence, dishonesty, or both. He also fails to describe revisionism beyond what he put in his video’s title—that revisionists believe the US provoked Japan, and not the other way around. His efforts are so tired and lame that, in rebuking him like this, I almost feel guilty for beating up on an old man.

Yet I must—despite the fact that I appreciate most of his takes not involving World War II or the Jewish Question. If revisionism needs to go down, then let it go down after a fair fight. Unfortunately, Hanson does not offer one, and thus cannot be allowed to run victory laps after exploiting the ignorance of his audience and telling them that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor “for no reason.”

[G]iven that we’re in the era of revisionism, especially about World War II, I think it’s wise if we just review what Pearl Harbor was about. Remember, the United States was not at war. The war had broken out in Europe on September 1st, 1939. So all of the last four months of 39, all of 40 and most of 41 . . . the United States had watched the Germans absorb most of Western Europe and the Balkans and had been in Russia. And at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, they were at the gates of Moscow, literally at the first subway station. So it seemed that they would take Russia. Meanwhile, the Japanese had done two things. They had invaded China again a second time in 1937, and they had half of what is now China under Japanese control in addition to . . . what is now South and North Korea.

And remember that the European colonial powers, the Netherlands and France had ceased to exist as independent countries. So their colonial possessions in the Pacific, specifically the bread basket of Asia in the Mekong Delta of Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, were no longer under independent French control. And the Japanese had absorbed them. But more importantly, what is now Indonesia, then called the Dutch East Indies, the Dutch had control of these islands. They were very rich in oil. The Dutch Shell Oil Company had substantial oil wells on there and the Japanese wanted to absorb those. It was that context that they attacked us. We didn’t attack them.

Hanson then contends that the Japanese had claimed they wanted peace while plotting war. He also implies that the United States had the right to check Japanese expansion because the territories they were conquering did not belong to them. This justified the oil embargo FDR leveled against them because “we had no other mechanism to convince them to get out of China.” This made America the innocent victim on December 7th, 1941.

It’s a nice story from an American viewpoint, but is it true? Revisionists say no. And if Victor Davis Hanson ever wants to convince someone even slightly acquainted with revisionism about the innocence of FDR, he should first mention the main proponents of revisionism and describe their works. These include Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, George Morgenstern, William Henry Chamberlain, Charles Tansill, and others. Then he will need to address the following points (all raised by Barnes in Barnes Against the Blackout, published in 1991 by the Institute of Historical Review), which threaten the accepted narrative about Pearl Harbor:

1. Did FDR, at his very first cabinet meeting in March 1933, not float the idea of war with Japan as a way to end the Great Depression? (pp. 72, 87)
2. Did the US not pressure Chiang Kai-shek of China to provoke the Japanese prior to the fighting at the Marco Polo Bridge in July 1937? (p. 89)
3. Did the Japanese in late 1940 not offer to retreat back to Manchuria if given, in the words of Barnes, “a little time and a face-saving formula” only to have the offer contemptuously rejected by FDR? (p. 85)
4. Did Secretary of War Henry Stimson not write of the Japanese thirteen days before Pearl Harbor, “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (p. 213)
5. Did Roosevelt and Winston Churchill not plot America’s “backdoor to war” through Japan when they met in Newfoundland in August 1941? (p. 91)

After this Hanson must address the following points raised by Navy veteran Robert Stinnett in his 1999 work Day of Deceit which all but proves that FDR goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor:

1. Did the Eight-Point McCollum Memorandum, written in October 1940, not outline the strategy the US employed during the 14-month lead up to the attack? (p. 6-10)
2. Did US cryptoanalysis not break Japanese codes and reveal that US forces knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it? (pp. 21-23, 226–229)
3. Was Pacific Fleet Commander Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel not kept in the dark regarding this cryptoanalysis? (pp. 66-67, 79-81, 223)
4. Were there not 129 intercepts of Japanese naval communication between November 15 and December 6, 1941, which busted the myth of Japanese “radio silence” as their ships sailed towards Pearl Harbor? (p. 208-210)

Hanson should keep in mind that these nine points come from a mere two sources and represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Pearl Harbor revisionism. Of course, it would be unreasonable to ask him to debunk it all in one YouTube video, but it would be (and was) equally unreasonable for him to attempt  to debunk it all without the slightest mention of the these or any other revisionist points. Barnes describes this high-handed approach as one of the methods used by the “court historians” of his day to deal with revisionists: they “overlook the decisive evidence which would overthrow their basic thesis.”

I am not arguing that the Japanese were completely blameless or always told the truth or did not commit atrocities. Hanson makes it clear how lethal, cruel, and expansionist the Japanese armed forces were. One can argue that this was reason enough for America’s entry into the war. Despite documenting all the skullduggery surrounding the Pearl Harbor cover-up, Stinnett himself justifies the subterfuge and exonerates FDR and his people for committing it.

This, of course, does not refute revisionism. One can espouse a revisionist view of history and America’s entry into World War II at the same time. It would just require a good deal of study and thought—which Stinnett undoubtedly put in. The problem is that for the vast majority of people (who don’t think and study as much as Stinnett did), supporting America’s entry into the war would be a lot easier if the revisionists were wrong and the court historians were correct. This is where history becomes political. Victor Davis Hanson, despite his conservative bone fides, wants to maintain the founding myth of modern liberalism—that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were the embodiment of evil, and anyone who had truck with them were evil as well. Given the highly disproportionate control Jews have over almost every aspect of Western culture and politics these days, this founding myth must not be challenged, truth be damned. Pearl Harbor revisionism, if left unchecked, has two uncomfortable outcomes for such people: it humanizes the Japanese, and it leads to D-Day revisionism, which could result in humanizing the Nazis and Adolf Hitler as well. And this terrifies the Jews.

To prevent this from happening, Hanson simply sweeps revisionism under the rug and does not dignify it with a counter argument. To those who actually pay attention to him, however, this is hardly convincing. Here is Hanson discussing Pearl Harbor in August of this year, giving his halfhearted approval of revisionism (emphasis mine):

I do know that FDR ordered in May of 1940, Admiral Richardson, the head of the Seventh Fleet, to move the base in San Diego all the way to Pearl Harbor. And he said, “I’m putting my head in a noose. The Seventh Fleet is not able to deter the Japanese Imperial Fleet in the Pacific. If you put me way out in the middle of nowhere in Hawaii, I will not have the infrastructure, the air support that I would have in San Diego.” And he kept complaining and they relieved him. Then Admiral Kimmel took over and he was relieved of command. I think 3 weeks afterwards, he was the fall guy. And out of that came a conspiracy that Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions, putting us out very vulnerable so we would be attacked. There may be some truth to that, but the idea that there’s a big untold story of Pearl Harbor is not true. We pretty much know that Roosevelt wanted to get in the war sooner or later. He felt that Europe would fall and he underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy, but he didn’t plan to have Pearl Harbor attacked.

Hanson’s viewers should ask him the following question: If there is “some truth” to the idea that “Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions,” why is he now claiming that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor “for no reason?”

Victor Davis Hanson can’t have it both ways.

Female victims. They’re very important to feminists, aren’t they? Of course they are. So let’s consider some male and female victims in 21st-century Britain. First, two men murdered with relatively little suffering by a man, who did not target them as males. Second, seventeen women and girls murdered with great suffering by another man, who deliberately targeted them as females and who also maimed and badly injured dozens more women and girls. Which set of victims do you think matters more to a feminist?

Emma’s Dilemma: “Who matter more: 17 murdered women or 2 murdered men?”

The answer is obvious. Any feminist would certainly find the second group, the murdered and maimed women and girls, far more significant and important. Wouldn’t she? Well, no. It’s the two murdered men who matter much more to one prominent media feminist in Britain. Indeed, the feminist is much more concerned about the two murdered men than she is about tens or hundreds of thousands of women and girls who have been raped, prostituted, tortured and sometimes murdered in Britain since the 1950s. So what kind of feminist is she? Simple. She’s a Jewish feminist called Emma Barnett (born 1985), who spent three years presenting the feminist flagship Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio. With her broad face and deep voice, she’s a good example of the high-testosterone, masculinized women who are over-represented among feminists. But how sincere is her feminism? Let’s try and find out. Barnett grew up in the northern English city of Manchester, where seventeen women and girls were horrifically murdered in 2017 by a male Muslim suicide-bomber, Salman Abedi, who had deliberately targeted a concert by the American pop-star Ariana Grande. Abedi knew that the concert would be attended by mostly women and girls.[1]

Blonde, broad-faced Jewish feminist Emma Barnett identifies with Jewish men, not with gentile women (image from Jewish News)

Sure enough, when he exploded his suicide-bomb, the vast majority of his victims were women and girls. In feminist terms, the attack was a blatant act of murderous misogyny by a malevolent masculinist intent on punishing women and girls for exercising autonomy, pursuing male-free pleasure and celebrating female culture. But did the feminist Emma Barnett condemn it in those obvious feminist terms? No, she didn’t. She joined the rest of the Sisterhood in responding to the Manchester bombing with silence. To repeat: when dozens of women and girls were murdered and maimed in her own home-town by a malevolent male misogynist, Emma Barnett utterly failed to apply her supposedly fierce feminist principles. Now fast-forward to October 2025, when another Muslim man attacked a synagogue in Manchester and murdered two Jewish men.[2] Fierce feminist Emma Barnett didn’t stay silent this time:

The BBC presenter and host [Emma Barnett] said she viewed the attack on Heaton Park Synagogue, her old shul, in October as having crossed a “threshold” in Britain.

“[The attack] felt very different,” she said of the attack which claimed the lives of two people. “When you’ve got Jews being killed in synagogues, it’s very, very frightening. It was a threshold crossed in Britain. But I don’t believe we [Jewish people] can’t live here and be happy.”

In a piece she wrote for the Times filed the day of the attack, Barnett said how she had been walking home from the gym when she heard the news.

“I was very, very upset and realised I was checking the story in a different way from normal because I was trying to see if I knew anyone who had been killed, which is not a normal way to interact with any story,” she said. “I could imagine the place; I know its doorknobs.” [Barnett continued: “My tears fall softly on the street outside my home, helping me to pierce the news wall I’ve built and absorb the dawning reality. I cry for the community. I cry for the people who have been killed and their families. I cry out of fear and for what such hate can do. But I also cry out of sheer rage, indignation and horror.”]

Writing for the [Jewish Chronicle] in 2016, Barnett said that she “came out” as a Jew live on air during her first LBC [London Broadcasting Company] broadcast without any forward planning. She wrote: “My throat was tight and mouth desert dry as the word fell clumsily out. ‘I am… a Jew.’ And there it was. My faith out there. Live on the radio. Before that point, my religion had never been relevant in my job.” (“Emma Barnett reveals Jeremy Corbyn had to plead with his supporters to stop them sending her antisemitic abuse,” The Jewish Chronicle, 9th November 2025)

Barnett is deluding herself when she says “my religion had never been relevant in my job.” Her “religion,” that is, her cultural and racial identity as a Jew, is obviously central to her politics and to her supposed feminism. I say “supposed,” because I don’t think her feminism is genuine. She “cried” and decided that “a threshold [was] crossed in Britain” only after two Jewish men were murdered in Manchester, not after seventeen women and girls were murdered in Manchester. And not after huge numbers of other women and girls became the victims of Muslim rape-gangs in Manchester and many other British towns and cities. The dead and abused White women and girls don’t seem to matter to the feminist Emma Barnett. But the two dead Jewish men? Ah, that’s different: “When you’ve got Jews being killed in synagogues, it’s very, very frightening. […] My tears fall softly on the street outside my home, helping me to pierce the news wall I’ve built and absorb the dawning reality. I cry for the community. I cry for the people who have been killed and their families. I cry out of fear and for what such hate can do. But I also cry out of sheer rage, indignation and horror.”

Blood, sweat and fears

However, when “you’ve got” far greater numbers of women and girls being murdered and maimed at a pop-concert, Emma Barnett does not find it “very, very frightening” and does not shed copious tears. Was this because the women and girls involved were shiksas, that is, gentile women? I’d suggest that it is. And what about Victoria Agoglia?

Emma Barnett has never wept for shiksa Victoria Agoglia, dead at fifteen in Manchester

Victoria Agoglia was a 15-year-old White girl who was killed in Manchester by a heroin overdose administered by a 50-year-old Muslim man. At the time she was in the “care” of the local leftist council, which, with the police, had been fully aware that she was “being repeatedly abused, raped and plied with drugs by predatory paedophiles.” Council and police did nothing to protect her and thousands of other White working-class girls from misogynist Muslim men steeped in toxic patriarchy and male supremacy. Has the fierce feminist Emma Barnett spoken out about that shocking case in her own home-town? Has she shed tears for that betrayed fifteen-year-old girl? If she has, something has prevented her words and tears being documented on the internet. But what about murders in a foreign country? Barnett can certainly wax eloquent about some of those:

When I heard the news that four Jews had been murdered last week [7th January 2015] on European soil by an Islamist gun-toting terrorist, my blood ran cold; my hands started sweating. Dazed, I found myself in the work toilets shedding a silent tear. And then I realised why I needed to be alone: I felt scared.

For the first time in my life, as a British Jew, 70 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz, I felt anxious and bewildered at how this assault had happened just across the Channel. While I was stunned and enraged by the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and writers — both as a journalist and citizen — it was the murder of my fellow Jews that left me feeling personally exposed. (“Somewhere between the Holocaust and 2015 it became OK to blame Jews again,” The Telegraph, 15th January 2015)

So now we know the group that truly matters to Emma Barnett: “my fellow Jews.” But “my fellow women” don’t truly matter to her. After the Manchester bombing, she did not describe how her “blood ran cold,” how her “hands started sweating” and how she found herself “dazed” and “shedding a silent tear.” Murdered women and girls in her own home-town? Yawn! Murdered Jews in a foreign country? Yowl! And while Barnett won’t speak up for the White female victims of non-White suicide-bombings and rape-gangs, she will speak up for the kind of non-White men who commit suicide-bombings and form rape-gangs. Here’s what she wrote about the so-called “Calais crisis” in 2015, when aggressive, low-IQ non-Whites were trying to force their way into Britain via the French port of Calais. Note how she mocks Whites and “reserves” her “compassion” for young non-White men:

Frazzled British holidaymakers “desperately” trying to reach France for your annual sojourn, have no fear! Café Rouge in Canterbury is here. The chain is offering those stuck in Operation Stack on the M20 a free tea and slice of cake if they happen to be diverted towards Canterbury — you know because of all that unfortunate nonsense going on at Calais. Little ones eat free! And if the family phone still has battery after hours of “hell” on the motorway, you can tweet about the experience using the special hashtag #RouteRouge.

Pass the sick bucket.

And while I do have sympathy for anyone stuck in the traffic jam that’s cost UK industry millions, I’m reserving my compassion for a group who really could murder a slice of cake. Just 21 miles from Britain there is a jungle. Or to give it its full name: Jungle Camp. This is where hundreds of displaced people from all over the world live in some of the most wretched conditions. Stuck in a no-man’s land in Calais, they are living in temporary cardboard structures and surviving on porridge made out of milk and soggy bread. Not that you will probably have paid them much attention over the last week.

The “Calais crisis” as it’s being referred to, is mostly being reported as a transport or business story. Actually, it’s a humanitarian timebomb. On Tuesday, one man died trying to get through the Channel Tunnel. We don’t know his name. He is the ninth this summer. […]

Even the language that’s being used to describe the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe is mechanical at best, and dehumanising at worst. Emergency government meetings are being held to ensure there is “upstream management of illegal migratory flows”. Excuse me? These are real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights. What if they were children instead of young men? Would we feel differently? […] This country has a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy. Let’s not let ourselves down because we’re impatient for a holiday or a booze cruise. It’s time to see the bigger picture and stop the lamentable narrowing of our horizons. An island nation we might be, but that doesn’t have to mean our mentality must follow suit. (“Calais crisis: Screw British holidaymakers. What about the real victims?,” The Telegraph, 30th July 2015)

It’s plain that Emma Barnett places the welfare of non-White men from the Third World far above the welfare of White women in Britain. Like countless other Jews, both avowedly leftist and supposedly “conservative,” she has welcomed unlimited immigration by non-Whites from the most corrupt, illiberal, rape-friendly and economically unproductive cultures on Earth. But the real concern of those Jews isn’t for non-White migrants: it’s for themselves. Like countless other Jews, Emma Barnett has supported non-White migration because she thinks it is “good for Jews.” That’s why she used the wrong pronoun when she said of Britain that “we are an island nation.” Her true nation — the country and group to which she is natally bonded — is plainly not Britain but Israel, which isn’t an island at all. So does Israel have “a proud history when it comes to taking in the needy”? Sadly, it doesn’t. Not if the needy are non-Jewish. Israel has erected high-tech fences on its borders to keep out “the needy” and has just spent two years using high explosive to make “the needy” of the Gaza Strip even needier than before.

Israel’s response to “the needy”: a big steel fence topped with barbed wire (image from Wikipedia)

That’s the Jewish attitude in Israel to “the needy.” But the Jewish attitude in the West to “the needy” is now shifting towards that in Israel. After the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, Jews based in the West seem to have expected that their non-White “natural allies” would side with poor persecuted Israelis rather than with murderous anti-Semitic Palestinians. To their horror and disbelief, non-Whites in the West have sided with non-White Palestinians, not with Israeli Jews. You see, non-Whites in the West have failed to absorb a loud and oft-repeated Jewish message. Jews have told non-Whites again and again that Jews are an oppressed minority just like them. Jews have told non-Whites again and again that Jews are entirely different from gentile Whites, who enjoy White privilege and oppress cowering Jews and their non-White “natural allies.” Alas, it’s now obvious that non-Whites have failed to absorb this vital Jewish message. Instead, they’ve come to regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper Privilege.” That’s why more and more Jews in the West are deciding that non-White immigration may not be so good for Jews after all.

The highly ethnocentric Emma Barnett may be among those Jews having a re-think about their natural allies. Recall how she invoked “children” in her sentiment-laden appeal for unlimited non-White immigration into Britain. Then recall how she shed copious tears and said “a threshold [was] crossed in Britain” by the murder of two Jewish men in Manchester. Well, that threshold was crossed by a Muslim man, Jihad Al-Shamie,[3] who came to Britain as a child. Maybe a disturbing biological fact has now struck Emma: that ickle children can grow up and become icky adults. Of course, she didn’t shed tears or think that any threshold was crossed when seventeen gentile women and girls were murdered in Manchester by another Muslim man, Salman Abedi. My conclusion? Emma Barnett is a fake feminist and genuine Jew.

[1]  Ariana Grande’s fans are also disproportionately gay and there was at least one gay among the five men killed in the Manchester bombing. Like women, gays are group whose welfare is supposedly of great concern to the left. But just as leftists refused to condemn Muslim misogyny after the bombing, so they refused to condemn Muslim homophobia.

[2]  One of the Jewish men was in fact accidentally shot dead by police, but the Muslim attacker was morally responsible for his death.

[3]  Note that Jihad al-Shamie means “Jihad of Syria” in Arabic. Did this ring any alarm-bells with the British authorities who gave asylum to little Jihad’s family? Of course not. Jews have trained White gentiles to regard common sense and rational self-interest as “racist” and “Islamophobic.”

Just as the upheavals of the 1960s sent led to neoconservatism among a significant number of Jews, the shock of October 7 has once again opened a path rightward—this time toward sitting President Donald Trump.

Bill Ackman, billionaire hedge fund CEO and Harvard alumnus, became the most visible example. Starting November 2023, Ackman became obsessed with campus antisemitism at his alma mater. In an open letter to then-Harvard President Claudine Gay, he wrote: “The situation at Harvard is dire and getting worse, much worse than I had realized.” He detailed how “Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted.” Ackman warned that failure to act could jeopardize “important sources of Harvard’s revenues.” Claudine Gay was replaced by a Jewish interim president.

In October 2024, explaining his Trump endorsement, Ackman wrote: “A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support @realDonaldTrump for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats.” He emphasized: “Some have accused me of supporting Trump because doing so will somehow benefit me financially. Fortunately, I do not need any financial benefits as I and my family have well more than we need.”

Miriam Adelson, widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, donated over $100 million to pro-Trump groups in 2024, emerging as Trump’s single largest donor. While the Adelsons had long been Republican megadonors, Miriam’s massive 2024 spending reflected intensified commitment following October 7. At the Israeli Knesset, Trump acknowledged her influence, stating she “loves Israel maybe even more than America.” Her contributions, along with those of other Jewish billionaires such as Jeffrey Yass, Paul Singer, Jan Koum, and the late Bernie Marcus have “pulled public policy on Israel away from the general public’s opinion,” noted Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, a more moderate-presenting pro-Israel lobbying organization.

Marc Rowan, billionaire CEO of Apollo Global Management, emerged after October 7 as a prominent voice pushing universities to address campus antisemitism. He lambasted the University of Pennsylvania’s response, telling CNBC show Squawk Box: “Microaggressions are condemned with extreme moral outrage and yet violence, particularly violence against Jews, antisemitism, seems to have found a place of tolerance on the campus.” Rowan has a history of donating to both parties. For example, he has donated to Democratic senators such as Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harry Reid, and Blanche Lincoln. By late 2024, Rowan was reportedly on Trump’s shortlist for Treasury Secretary.

Political activist Shabbos Kestenbaum personified the Jewish Democratic-to-Trump convert. A Harvard Divinity School graduate and registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders, Jamaal Bowman, and Joe Biden, Kestenbaum announced his Trump endorsement in September 2024. Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition convention, he explained: “I did not support Trump in 2016, I did not support Trump in 2020. Hell, I did not support Trump six months ago. Nobody’s perfect.” However, he stressed, “The Democratic party has taken the Jewish vote and Jewish voters for granted for far too long. I will be supporting, I will be endorsing, I will be voting for President Trump.”

Kestenbaum revealed that after months of attempting to cooperate with the Harris campaign, as well as with the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress, Kestenbaum ultimately concluded that although he hadn’t voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, he would back him in 2024, believing Trump to be the “only realistic and viable option for American Jewry.” He stressed: “The Trump campaign invited me and other college students to sit, front row, as President Trump not only condemned antisemitism but clearly articulated the policies he would implement to combat it. The Harris campaign delivered no such promises.” Despite supporting Trump, Kestenbaum maintained he still backs progressive policies including a $15 minimum wage, reproductive choice, and progressive taxation. He proclaimed, “I did not abandon the Democratic party. The Democratic party abandoned me.”

Polling data reveals modest but measurable rightward movement among Jewish voters post-October 7, though the majority has remained Democratic. Vice President Kamala Harris won 71% of the Jewish vote compared to 26% for Trump, according to the Jewish Electorate Institute. However, Trump’s 32% share according to Fox News exit polling marked “the highest number for a Republican presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988.” The Republican Jewish Coalition emphasized Trump’s historic gains with Jewish voters: 38% in Arizona, 42% in Nevada, 44% in Florida, 46% in New York, and 41% in Pennsylvania.

The most remarkable shift occurred among Orthodox Jews, who voted for Trump at 74%. This contrasted sharply with Reform Jews (84% for Harris), Conservative Jews (75% for Harris), and non-denominational Jews (70% for Harris).

A 2025 UJA-Federation of New York study found that 22% of Jewish New Yorkers reported becoming more conservative since October 7, compared to 13% who became more liberal, while 65% reported no change. Among those already conservative in 2023, 46% became even more conservative by 2025. Additionally, 49% reported their attachment to Israel had become stronger since October 7, especially among moderates (70%) and conservatives (62%), compared to just 33% of liberals.

In sum, the evidence indicates an emerging trend rather than wholesale realignment, but the direction is unmistakable. What’s unfolding with American Jewry’s rightward shift isn’t a principled conversion but a strategic repositioning. Jewish political activists have mastered the art of maintaining powerful voices across the entire political spectrum, ensuring that no matter which faction gains power, Jewish interests are represented at the highest levels and their racial will to power is realized.

The neoconservatives of the 1960s perfected this playbook. They did not simply defect from the Left; they penetrated the conservative movement, refashioned it, and aligned its priorities with their own communal interests. The consequences were unmistakable. Figures on the Right who once embodied older traditions—skepticism of mass migration, hostility toward compulsory racial integration, and opposition to foreign entanglements—were steadily purged from positions of influence and denied any real livelihood within Conservatism Inc. In their place, a cadre of Jewish neoconservative operatives rose to the helm and steered the movement according to their own ethnic imperatives.

What we are witnessing is not a political anomaly but an attempt at historical recurrence. Just as in the 1960s–1990s, Jewish power brokers are trying to reorganize the Right to their advantage, and at least some in the conservative movement are knuckling under to their influence. There is a pervasive fear among conservatives opposed to this influence that the GOP will revert to its neoconservative trajectory when Trump leaves —although Trump himself has obviously made peace with the pro-Israel pro-intervention activists, many of whom, like Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, and Bill Kristol deserted him in 2016. How else explain the U.S. joining Israel in bombing Iran? Indeed, the neocons never really left their positions of power in the foreign policy establishment.

The problem for the neocons this time around is that in the pre-internet, pre-podcast 1960s–1980s there were no popular voices representing paleoconservative ideas and the mainstream media was completely locked down with pro-Israel shills and didn’t raise a peep when paleoconservatives were pushed out of positions of power in mainstream conservativism during the Reagan administration. Now there are voices like Tucker Carlson with very large followings who have continued to be part of the mainstream Right despite being called “anti-Semites,” despite their opposition to foreign entanglements (not only in the Middle East but also in Ukraine), despite their open criticism of the Israel Lobby and advocating that pro-Israel organizations be forced to register as foreign agents, despite calling Christian Zionism a “heresy,” and despite their open hostility to figures like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz with their often-declared fealty to Israel despite its ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and its genocide in Gaza.

So this isn’t over. Jewish neocons have been around for a long time and anyone paying attention sees them coming and knows them for what they are: Jewish ethnic activists who see genuine American interests as a distant second to their overriding concern with Jewish interests. Or they are ambitious traitors like Cruz who believe that continuing to support neoconservative ideas on foreign policy is the key to attaining the White House. In other words, a typical sociopathic American politician for whom power is all that matters.